Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 46 — Tuesday, October 14, 2014 (HTML)

Present: Dan Ashton, MLA (Chair); Eric Foster, MLA; Simon Gibson, MLA; Wm. Scott Hamilton, MLA; George Heyman, MLA; Gary Holman, MLA; Mike Morris, MLA; Jane Jae Kyung Shin, MLA; John Yap, MLA

3. The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES


CONTENTS
Page
Presentations	1147
P. Kariya
I. Bruce
M. Reynolds
L. Shorten
B. D’Eith
C. Bueckert
S. Owen
C. Hansen
D. Marshall
B. Qualey
C. Bonesky
M. Davis
S. Olson
A. Kay
S. Ang
L. Ridley
D. Baer
J. Donaldson
R. Gagner
M. Gleeson
G. Dearle
B. Davis
K. McCormack
R. Santiago
N. Power
M. Bourcheix-Laporte
J. Willow
J. Stuart Chatterley
S. Smith
M. Scott
S. Gregson
D. Nixdorf
R. Nickelchok
J. Robinson
R. Gloor
J. Block
R. Tavender
B. Barnes
B. Swan
G. Attara

D. Ashton (Chair): Good morning, everybody. My name is Dan Ashton. I’m the MLA for Penticton and Chair of this committee, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. We’re an all-party parliamentary committee of the Legislative Assembly — that, I have to say, works very well together — with a mandate to hold provincewide public consultations over the next provincial budget.

The consultations are based on the budget consultation paper that is released by the Minister of Finance. Following the consultations, the committee will release a report with recommendations for Budget 2015 no later than November 15, 2014.

This year we are holding 16 public hearings in communities across the province. A video session also took place on October 8, where we heard from four additional communities — Dawson Creek, Quesnel, Smithers and Castlegar. This week we are in Surrey, Delta and Mission.

In addition to the hearings, the committee is accepting written, audio and video submissions and responses to a short on-line survey. You can make a submission or learn more by visiting our webpage at www.leg.bc.ca/budgetconsultations. You can also follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

We invite all British Columbians to take the time to make a submission and participate in this important process. All public input is carefully considered as part of the committee’s final report to the Legislative Assembly. The deadline for submissions is Friday, October 17, 2014.

Today’s meeting will consist of presentations from registered witnesses. Each presenter will have ten minutes to speak, followed by five minutes for questions or comments from the committee.

Today’s meeting is being recorded and transcribed by Hansard Services, and a complete transcript of the proceedings will be posted to the committee’s website. All of the meetings are also broadcast live as audio via our website.

J. Shin: Good morning. My name is Jane Shin. I’m the MLA for Burnaby-Lougheed, and I’m the deputy spokesperson for multiculturalism, immigration and trade.

G. Heyman: Good morning. George Heyman, MLA for Vancouver-Fairview and opposition spokesperson for technology, TransLink and green economy.

D. Ashton (Chair): Also assisting us today are Susan Sourial, sitting to my immediate left, and Sarah Griffiths from the parliamentary committees office.

Hansard Services is also here to record the proceedings. We have Ian Battle and Alexa Hursey.

Thank you, again, for your fast trip and getting everything set up, folks from Hansard. That’s great.

We’ll start this morning with Mr. Kariya. Welcome. We have ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll give you a two-minute warning, if I think it’s necessary. Five minutes for questions or comments. The floor is yours. Good morning again.

P. Kariya: Thank you very much, committee. I’ll try and make sure that I don’t speak too long so that there is time for engagement and questions.

I represent the Clean Energy Association of British Columbia, which is comprised of the private sector electricity developers and operators in wind, small hydro, biomass, biogas and also natural gas generation in British Columbia. We represent about 200 members, which also include supply chain folks, engineers, environmental consultants, lawyers and the like.

I should also say that while I rattled off the commercial contractors who provide, there are also members who are in what I would call a pre-commercial stage of electricity production in this province. Those would be geothermal, ocean and solar technologies.

We receive no subsidies in the province. We provide about 17 percent of the electricity, through our membership, to the grid.

We’re also proud that we have seven First Nations who are members of the association. These are dues-paying members who participate in the governance of the association. I think that’s quite rare, as industry associations go.

Our mandate is to help develop and maintain a viable private sector power industry in British Columbia that serves the public interest by providing cost-effective electricity through the efficient and environmentally responsible development of the province’s clean energy resources.

Very soon the government will make its decision on whether to proceed with B.C. Hydro’s Site C dam, a flood storage hydro project. The project certainly has its strengths and benefits. I’m here today, however, to provide you with an alternative — an alternative that, I would say, did not exist in this province ten to 15 years ago.

Clean and renewable energy projects are, first, cost-effective. A well-chosen and diversified clean energy portfolio of projects can meet and exceed what Site C represents. Our sector can meet price, cost and reliability, and, in partnership with the public sector, we can also meet the capacity concerns, if any.

Forecasting long-term load is extremely uncertain. That’s why I think the Minister of Energy made the right decision last November when he approved B.C. Hydro’s integrated resource plan for only two years, which means it’s up again in 2015.

A prudent, parallel decision now is to hold off making an $8 billion long-term decision when a clean portfolio permits procurement decisions to be made incrementally to match load. This avoids the potential expensive problem of having surplus power.

Committing to build a hydro megaproject, which is equivalent to approximately 1½ times one of the large LNG projects, risks construction and labour inflation and productivity issues in completion while the province is trying to secure LNG as an industry. Why compete with that sector?

The overall government debt situation also mitigates against putting another $8 billion on the books when there are, certainly, important public sector investments that need to be made through other Crowns, through other ministries and that. Why risk doing that with an $8 billion hydro project and risk the province’s triple-A credit rating?

No other resource sector in B.C. today has the support of First Nations like the clean energy sector does. I quite confidently assert that to you. What other sectors are First Nations asking for? Are they asking for more pipelines, more mines? Not necessarily, but they are universally asking for more clean energy and a role for them within it.

For many First Nations, these projects are the on-ramp to the economy. For many economies of First Nations that don’t have the blessing of urban locations where they can lease land or developments, these hinterland projects — and they’re throughout British Columbia — can represent that economic development opportunity.

Site C’s $8 billion capital cost estimate has not changed in four years. I don’t mean to criticize by saying that, but, in comparison, we have a clean-energy sector that’s building right now. There are projects that have been completed recently. There are projects that will be completed in the near future. In terms of my membership, those are folks who are on top of the marketplace in terms of what it takes to provide and build for these projects and what the costs are.

In the final analysis, what is needed is a market test. You have a pro forma model in what Site C and B.C. Hydro have prevented, and, in essence, you have a pro forma model from what my sector is providing to you. We’re saying we can do it. What’s the right thing to do for the public? It’s to put it to a market test, a market that is crowded with all kinds of development potential right now. Put it out there. Let us compete head to head. I think that would serve the interests of the public.

A power call alone would spark economic activity. There is broad societal support for leveraging the foundation of large-storage hydro in this province. You can have the situation of what B.C. Hydro has done — and we’re quite proud of it, in terms of its storage system — and have that firm and shape intermittent power that my members represent. That’s the best of both worlds here.

As you head into your budget planning, I would challenge you to consider these points and ensure that decisions taken consider the rates and costs, but also the broad socioeconomic benefits that renewable energy projects mean to the whole province of British Columbia. The clean energy sector is built upon the principles of protecting the environment, fully engaging First Nations, building legacy infrastructure and ensuring sustainable economic development.

Recommendations I would leave with you, then, from our sector are that the government should fully embrace the clean energy sector and develop a clean energy strategy. Build upon the successes of our sector. “Cleanest LNG in the world” is a term that’s oft-used. Using our sector, I think it can be engaged and enabled to its fullest.

Government has a robust, cost-effective alternative to Site C, a diversified and distributed portfolio of clean energy built as needed to match load, not to overbuild.

Certainly, transmission considerations need to be considered, and we can do that jointly, involving First Nations and others who would be concerned about transmission.

CEBC believes that innovative procurement and planning can further mitigate risk and keep costs manageable for ratepayers and taxpayers. CEBC encourages all parties to support a clean energy vision for the province.

The opportunity to build Site C is sometimes framed in terms of the choices made by governments of the day in the ’50s and ’60s that made the investment that, really, was for the very long term. And in this past generation we’ve benefited from those investment decisions.
[ Page 1149 ]

What would you say to those who take that view — that this is “our last opportunity” to build a large-scale hydro project in the province of B.C.?

P. Kariya: Thanks, John. I would answer by saying, in the positive, that it’s indeed true. I think in terms of studying the landscape, large flood-storage hydro has fallen out of favour. They are big projects that impact the environment. In this province, while there are other systems that we could dam, the public would no longer put up with that. So here is a project that is potentially — I would agree — the last flood-storage hydro project that we have.

Having said that, I think the legacy of the past really doesn’t fit for the future. Time frames have changed. I think the fact that it will take ten or 12 years to commit to and then hit the switch is a long gap in time in terms of what can happen with load and the improvement in technologies. The pace of change has quickened that we didn’t face before, so I think one has to be really cautious about that.

Is it a good project? I have no doubt that in terms of the engineering and the capabilities of the people that we have in B.C. Hydro and the consultants that would be used, it would be first-rate. But in terms of risk and a risk profile in terms of committing to that today when there is an alternative…. We didn’t have an alternative 20 or 30 years ago. I think that in the face of that alternative, it’s extremely risky to do that proposition.

I think one also has to note that it’s labelled Site C for a reason. Site A and Site B have been developed and gone. Site C was always the third choice. I think that in the face of third pick, there are other alternatives that we should look at.

Just a comment on my colleague’s question. While it may be the last major storage project available to B.C. Hydro, it’s not the last opportunity. I don’t think the river is going away.

I did have some questions. My understanding is there’s a substantial surplus of electrical power now in British Columbia, in part created because of the success of the private power sector. That’s one question.

A second question. When you talk about a call, a competitive call, that typically would be done through the Utilities Commission. Is that what you’re suggesting?

The third question is: what about energy conservation as an alternative, and should that be considered? For example, if it was the Utilities Commission undertaking the call, shouldn’t we be thinking about energy conservation as well?

D. Ashton (Chair): Paul, we have other questions. Maybe just Coles Notes, if you don’t mind — just the points on it, please.

P. Kariya: Okay, the surplus concerns. I think the very fact that the minister only approved the IRP for two years indicates that that number is very changeable. I think that if you were to ask folks today what’s happened with that surplus, you’d get a variable answer. It’s not quite as certain as one might say that we’re in surplus.

In terms of a power call, we’d be looking at whatever competitive process that government and Hydro feel comfortable in setting. We have to, at the end of the day, through the Legislature, answer to the people. That’s what we’re asking for, so if the rules say that it should be through the Utilities Commission or somebody else, we’re open to it. Let’s do it right. I think there are improvements that can be made upon that.

Conservation? You bet. I think we need to have the Crown agency also accountable for its aggressive conservation targets. Have they met what they set out they were going to do? Because if they haven’t, then we have a gap that needs to be addressed — but we’re certainly for conservation.

M. Morris: Thanks, Paul, for your presentation. Just one question. You talked about the availability of resources if we build, go ahead with Site C, and it’s in direct competition with LNG projects that are going to be coming on line here.

If we don’t go ahead with Site C, there’s still a lot of infrastructure that needs to be developed for your association members, but they’re going to be scattered all over the place. Is that going to be problematic for us in competing with the resources for these LNG projects as well?

P. Kariya: I think it’s a fair question, Mike. I think we need to be nervous and concerned about inflation and productivity no matter what projects are undertaken. The benefits of our projects are that you can time them, they’re smaller and scalable, and they are located in various parts of the province and not in one congested area in the north. That’s the advantage.

But I think it’s fair to say that all builders of major projects are going to be concerned about megaprojects, small or large, going forward, just with the development pressures we face. My point would be: why add to it by committing to such a large project at this time that has no off-ramps?

G. Heyman: Thank you, Paul, for your presentation. Recent reports have stated that Canada in general and B.C. in particular have some significant geothermal potential, and I’m wondering if you’re able to comment on that, if members or potential members of your association are engaged in that.

Also, if you’re able to speak to this, have there been any recent meaningful discussions between LNG proponents and people in your association about powering these
[ Page 1150 ]
plants with anything other than gas, with the exception of wood fibre, of course?

P. Kariya: The geothermal question comes up often. We are certainly a province blessed with potential resource. The problem for members and others who are engaged in geothermal — we do have members who in different parts of the world are engaged — is that it’s extremely capital-intensive. It is like drilling for mining. I ask that naive question — naive on my part — to members, and they say: “Paul, what we’re thinking of is not the home geothermal–type situation.”

You’re having to commit to drilling three to four kilometres deep. You’re looking at programs that…. For one company I can think of that’s active in Chile and the Philippines, they’re $20 million to $30 million invested and have not proven the resource, and they’re saying: “What enterprise is prepared to put that kind of money on the table without some guarantee at the end?” So in the case of both the Philippines and Chile, there are programs from government to help with the drilling costs and also with procurement on the other end.

The companies aren’t saying: “Change the rules here.” They’re just saying: “That’s why you don’t have geothermal.” It’s just so risky to put that kind of money into the ground. If things change, if the price curve goes up, potentially….

There’s one big project — potentially large project — up in the Lakelse Lake area, where the hot springs are, between a First Nation and a company that has some federal government funding. They’re proposing a program of drilling. Beyond that, I don’t know where they’re going to go with it.

P. Kariya: Okay. We have had some discussions — and our members have had some discussions — with LNG companies. I think there’s positive engagement there. The companies turn around to us and say: “Our business is to try and keep our business simple. As soon we extend to including B.C. Hydro or you or whatever, it complicates it. We need to nail down the cost parameters first before we talk about the rest of it.”

Just before we carry on, I would like to introduce an MLA peer and friend of ours — Bruce Ralston, Surrey-Whalley.

Mr. Bruce, welcome. Thank you for coming today. We have ten minutes allotted for the presentation, five minutes for questions or comments, and I will give you a two-minute warning, if so required, up to the end of the ten.

I. Bruce: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. We strongly appreciate the work that you’re doing touring the province and hearing ideas on how to improve B.C.’s budget and ideas for the future.

Today I’d like to speak about three of those ideas. One is specifically regarding B.C.’s carbon tax and a bit of the success that that policy has achieved to date and what could be done moving forward.

I’d also like to talk about B.C.’s clean-technology sector. In addition to what Paul Kariya mentioned today about the clean-energy sector, there’s also a rapidly growing technology sector in Canada that I’ll speak to.

Lastly, looking at the budget around infrastructure investment around transportation and sustainable transportation.

Certainly, in B.C. we’ve now had the carbon tax in place since 2008, and we’re starting to see some of the success of that policy. We’ve seen per-capita greenhouse gas emissions decrease by about 18 percent compared to the rest of the country, which is excellent progress starting to be made, while at the same time, B.C.’s economy has been stronger than the average in our country.

The policy has been recognized by the World Bank and the OECD for being a policy that can help drive innovation while at the same time diversifying our income sources when it comes to the fiscal realities of what we have to deal with.

As well, B.C. is not alone. There are now 25 jurisdictions around the world that have put a price in on carbon. Some of those jurisdictions have had them in place for more than 20 years. We’re certainly seeing, more and more, the need to move forward with policies that drive things like clean energy, to address things like climate change and clean air. As well, we’re seeing many countries doing so to create business opportunities.

With large economies like China looking to rapidly move to cleaner sources of energy, whether that be for air pollution in some of the cities or for other reasons, B.C. companies and Canadian companies are taking advantage of that situation. I’ve listed some of the jurisdictions there on a map — some of the blue areas indicating jurisdictions that have put in place carbon taxes, some of the green areas indicating places that have put in place cap-and-trade systems — just to give you an idea.

Certainly, B.C. did take leadership back in 2008 in putting this policy in place, and at the time, we had a pretty broad policy. It applied to about 75 percent of B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions, yet there was a portion of emissions that was supposed to be addressed through regulations or a cap-and-trade system. We have yet to sort of fully implement that policy.
[ Page 1151 ]

One of the opportunities we have right now is to expand that policy to cover process emissions, which are largely from the natural gas sector here in the province that aren’t subject to the carbon tax. Doing so would increase revenues by about $125 million, approximately. That’s one of the opportunities — to sort of close that loophole, to apply the carbon tax to all greenhouse gas emissions.

One of the really good-news stories in Canada — and it’s probably one of the least told stories — is that the clean technology industry in Canada is our fastest-growing economic sector. There are about 41,000 Canadians employed in this sector. B.C. employs roughly 9,000 of those workers.

These tend to be small to medium-sized companies. That’s one of the big reasons why we don’t hear a lot about this sector. It’s hard to measure. They’re diverse companies. The majority of their sales are exports. They are seizing global opportunities in the energy economy around the world and don’t necessarily receive the same attention as we give other sectors, largely because they don’t have a national industry association and sort of go under the radar in that respect.

But in B.C. we have over 200 companies that raise an estimated $2.5 billion in revenue every year or generate revenue every year. It’s a rapidly growing sector, and one of the biggest challenges to this sector is being recognized. Whether it’s the B.C. budget recognizing the significance of the sector in the province or whether it’s Statistics Canada, we need to be doing more working with federal and provincial governments across the country to ensure that we’re keeping an eye on this sector, because if we can’t measure the sector or understand the sector, it’s hard to maximize its potential.

Right now a lot of these companies, as I mentioned, are seizing global opportunities. There could be more that we could do within Canada to recognize domestic opportunities to grow the sector, which would go a long way.

One of the things that recently came about at the Council of the Federation meetings in P.E.I. this year: the Premiers did recognize that carbon pricing and taking leadership on climate change would be an important step forward to addressing Canada’s energy strategy. That was, I believe, a very important step.

I think one thing B.C. could do — as it has been, certainly, promoting B.C.’s carbon tax to other jurisdictions — is to also encourage some of the economic benefits that are going along with this type of policy. The clean technology sector and the clean energy sector, as Paul spoke to earlier, are two key sectors that are generating many jobs in Canada and in B.C. and are something that we should be acknowledging more and more.

The other issue I’d like to just touch on is B.C.’s transportation challenges. Many of our cities throughout B.C. are growing rapidly in population. We’ve got some of the fastest-growing cities, including Surrey, in the country. We’re certainly seeing a lot of traffic congestion in our communities, which is taking away from economic productivity as well as having an impact on our quality of life and our quality of air and other environmental indicators. It’s certainly something that we’re noticing.

Right now we don’t have long-term funding dedicated to things like transit and other sustainable transportation infrastructure that had been identified in B.C.’s transit plans and other regional plans. A key concern for ensuring that we have both a healthy environment and a prosperous economy is to ensure that people and goods can move around our region efficiently.

There are some SkyTrain stations in the Lower Mainland that move more people every day than YVR airport. This is an incredibly important infrastructure that we can’t forget. It’s certainly a key driver to continuing to ensure that British Columbians have a high quality of life.

I have a figure on page 7. You’ll notice that these are provincial investments in B.C.’s transit plan. The transit plan was first introduced in 2008 and was roughly a $4.75 billion investment over 12 years in B.C. You can see the green bars there are the projected investments required that were listed in our budgets. In the three-year fiscal plans that we have in our budget, those are the projected requirements. You can see the high projection in dark green and the lower projection in light green. The actual investments we’ve made are in red.

I guess one of the concerns I have, looking at this investment portfolio over the years, is that we’ve continuously failed to meet the projections that we have identified in our budgets. Certainly, there have been issues such as the financial collapse back in 2008 that tightened up our budgets. But looking at the long term, this is the type of infrastructure investment that makes sense, even during tough economic times — to be investing in creating jobs through investing in key infrastructure. Transit and sustainable transportation are some of those.

In summary, I wanted to state that we strongly appreciate the work that you’re doing and that we have three key recommendations.

One is to continue B.C.’s leadership through the carbon tax. There are opportunities to expand the application of the carbon tax to industrial process emissions, which would increase some revenues by about $125 million.

As well, ensure the tax continues to be fair, especially for low-income British Columbians. So keeping the low-income tax credit in step with the annual increases is vitally important, we’d see, in our view.

We are also asking to encourage more sustainable, dedicated long-term funding towards sustainable transportation, whether they go to regional plans, such as Metro Vancouver’s plan, or other plans that are covered through B.C. Transit and that service about 84 communities across British Columbia.

Lastly, we’re encouraging this committee to recognize the significance of B.C.’s clean technology sector as a whole, in addition to the clean energy sector, and work to maximize its potential in Canada. Certainly, we need a lot of cooperation between federal and provincial governments.

In summary, thank you very much for your time, and I’d be pleased to answer any questions.

You talked about how the clean tech sector’s market is mostly an export market and that there is significant potential out there. I’m wondering if the Suzuki Foundation has done studies or organizations with whom you’ve worked have done studies to indicate what the potential of that market might be, as well as what the potential of the internal B.C. and Canadian markets might be.

I’m not asking for that information today, but if you are able to send it in by Friday, which is our deadline for anything additional to a submission, that would be useful to us.

Finally, I’m wondering if you have any thoughts about specific measures that the budget or government could take with respect to supporting the sector.

I. Bruce: On the national scale, Analytica Advisors has been one of the key consultants that has been measuring the growth of the sector nationally. It’s anticipated that this sector could be larger than Canada’s aerospace sector by the year 2020, which would employ more than 100,000 Canadians in this sector. But there are certain things that we do need to move on, such as encouraging Statistics Canada to start measuring the contribution of this sector in their reports — things that are that simple.

One of the other aspects happens to be on education around postgraduate degrees. In B.C. one of our biggest challenges is having more postgraduate degrees from the technology-based sectors, so working with schools on that is a key requirement.

Carbon pricing has been one of the top policies that have helped drive innovation in the sector. It certainly has helped drive B.C.’s sector, which has been recognized in their industry reports. That’s another key policy that can help spur innovation and deployment of some of these technologies domestically.

D. Ashton (Chair): Ian, we have three minutes left for questions and four questions.

There is not too much in here regarding how we allocate the resources. As you know, financial resources are limited, and the general attitude today is: “Well, let somebody else do it, or let government do it.” How do you respond to that — that as a government, we just don’t often have the resources that we’d like to do everything?

Some of the points you make are well taken, but we tend to say: “Well, we don’t have a dollar amount today, so we’ll just kind of let somebody else do it.” That’s not a criticism, more an observation. Did you want to comment on that a little bit?

I mean, one of the things to look at…. Even the carbon tax, if it was to be expanded or increased incrementally, would bring in new revenues to address some of these key infrastructure requirements. We are trying to promote some solutions and not coming to this table without any ideas. That would certainly be one of our key points.

As well, these infrastructure investments aren’t keeping pace, necessarily, with some of the population growth that we’re experiencing. It is having a big impact. It’s acting as an anchor on our economy, if we’re not making the types of transportation investments that are required.

I think you’ve answered my question. I was going to ask whether your carbon tax expansion was going to be revenue-neutral. I take it from your previous comment that you intend it to be incremental, so we’re not reducing income taxes, say, for example. I take it that it’s not revenue-neutral.

The point you’re making about the need for transit investments I think reinforces the presentation made by Paul just previously about Site C, which is an $8 billion capital ask. You’re pointing out an alternative need for investment.

A more substantive question. We’ve had the cement industry and other manufacturers come to the committee complaining about the impact of the carbon tax on their competitiveness. They each had different solutions for that. The cement industry was suggesting a carbon tax on imports, for example.

Have you thought about that — the concern about the impact of the carbon tax, particularly for manufactured goods?

D. Ashton (Chair): Ian, it’s got to be five seconds. That’s it. I’m sorry. We’re out of time.

Clean energy — new technologies would be the only clean energy companies that are associated with the clean
[ Page 1153 ]
tech sector. So there’d be many clean energy companies that aren’t captured in that sector. They’d have to have a new, innovative technology to sell.

D. Ashton (Chair): Ian, I’m sorry. What I would suggest is…. You’ve seen kind of the direction that we’re coming from on this. I would encourage you to put some additional answers in by the 17th. It’ll help us out a lot. Okay? And I do apologize. I have to treat everybody the same.

Up next we have Music B.C.; the Canadian Media Production Association, B.C. producers branch; and the Association of Book Publishers of British Columbia. I have Bob, Liz and Margaret. Welcome, folks. Thank you very much for coming today.

So ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll give you a two-minute warning. Then we have five minutes for questions. You can see that the questions will come fast and furious. I would strongly encourage you to have shorter answers because — I’m sorry — I do have to cut you off.

M. Reynolds: Thank you very much for allowing us to come and speak to you today. We’ve been here before. It has always been a very interesting experience and, I hope, educational for you.

We are the representatives of the creative industries, as you’ve said. We’re here to speak about how we can move the creative industries in B.C. forward and to present a couple of asks from you.

Our industry is dynamic. We have great synergies with each other. We’ve been working together for three years, and we’ve found many opportunities to push forward our agenda, both with the government and with each of our industries.

We did a document a few years ago called From the Margins to the Mainstream, which some of you may have seen. It was an important document that outlined our contribution to the economy of British Columbia, to the jobs of British Columbia and to the creation of our creative product.

We’ve also done a copyright symposium together. This is really important, because intellectual property is the foundation of our industries. If we don’t keep our intellectual property in British Columbia, the people of British Columbia won’t be the beneficiaries of that.

We are defined by our intellectual property, as I said, but our foundations are in creativity — writers, film-makers, musicians. The creative industries are the people who push those products, if you like — those special products — out into the marketplace.

We work together, as I said before. The lovely little diagram that’s on page 3 of our document demonstrates visually how our industries are interconnected and how we have opportunities — and, I think, lots more opportunities in future — to maximize those synergies between our industries.

One of the things that was in the From the Margins to the Mainstream document was a recommendation that a cross-ministerial committee be established. We’re happy that the government has actually put that in place. We have yet to have the first meeting, but I believe it’s supposed to be happening in October.

We’re quite optimistic that this committee will help us to identify issues where we can work together with government, through the various ministries — not just in Jobs and Skills but in other ministries — to identify opportunities that we may not have heard about before.

Of course, the other thing that was in From the Margins to the Mainstream was the creation of Creative B.C. — the agency which we’re very thankful has been created. It’s much underfunded, as you’re going to hear, but it is a very, very important pillar in helping to put forward healthy creative industries in this province.

I’m the stats gal — today, anyway. Sorry, we don’t have these pages numbered.

On the first slide, around the economic contribution. We called our report a few years ago From the Margins to the Mainstream, because we felt that the statistics, actually, that were included in a PricewaterhouseCoopers report called Opportunity 2020 were surprising to us when we saw the economic contribution. So $4 billion in gross domestic product, employing over 80,000 British Columbians and, in fact, a growth rate which exceeds other industries.

In the next couple of slides you’ll see that displayed here in terms of employment — up from 74,000 to 85,000. You can see how it compares to agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, mining and oil and gas extraction — just the upward growth of the sector — and on the next slide how the GDP is plotted — again, against the other sectors.

We know that in this part of the provincial economy, we are contributing. We contribute from across the province. Margaret’s members, our members and Bob’s members are throughout the province and are employing people — small businesses.

We’re going to hear a little bit more about how they go out to market from Bob.

All of our industries go out to the global markets. We take our creative content, and we go out to markets all over the world. Those are our intellectual properties that
[ Page 1154 ]
we take out and sell to the world.

Since the creation of Creative B.C. we’ve been really fortunate to be able to do some trade missions that we hadn’t been able to in the past, including Reeperbahn for music, some L.A. trade missions in music and film, the Frankfurt Book Fair. There are many, many markets that we’re getting to now because of Creative B.C. and many, many more that we could get to.

That’s why I wanted to thank the government for creating Creative B.C. It’s an amazing organization. We now have an economic development agency that includes film, television, digital media, music, books, magazine publishing. It reports to the Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training, which is great.

But we want to make sure we work with the government to ensure that this agency is adequately funded to actually fulfil its mandate. If we look at some of the other provinces around the country, just as examples, Creative Saskatchewan has a budget of $7.4 million; OMDC, between $30 million and $40 million a year; the film and creative sector in Nova Scotia, $5.3 million; and Creative B.C. is at $2.2 million.

Our report had requested $15 million as a modest first ask to fund such an ambitious and important organization as Creative B.C. We’re very grateful that it exists, but there’s so much more that we could do for our creative industries. We’ve got this amazing dynamic sector in this province, and we feel that Creative B.C. could do so much more in a lot of areas.

Right now it’s doing a certain amount in export marketing because that’s the low-hanging fruit we can go after. But we also have to look at any economic….

A corporation like this, we should be looking at project development, content development, export preparedness, research — we need a lot of research funded, and our statistics are not where we want them to be — and also marketing, taking this sector and marketing it to the world. That’s something that Creative B.C. should be and could be doing if it was properly funded.

The long and the short of it is that we’re very, very grateful to have a home with Creative B.C., but we really feel that the government needs to step up and partner with us to a greater extent.

L. Shorten: I guess I would add one more addition here, and that is that the funding that is provided through Creative B.C. is always matched by the private sector. For example, in an export development initiative that our sector is doing next month, we’re taking a number of animation studios to Los Angeles and having a business-to-business day.

All of those companies are not only paying for their travel and accommodations, but they’re also contributing to the programming costs, alongside our organization and a modest contribution from Creative B.C.

It’s actually leveraging. It’s a catalyst for other private financing coming into projects, whether it’s an export development project or in fact an individual project that’s getting financed.

B. D’Eith: To pick up on what Liz is saying, the leverage aspect is huge because we’re able to now go to WD, when we weren’t able to in the past — or our sector anyway — as a group. We’ve actually gone to Western Diversification to partner. We can actually take the money that Creative B.C. gets and we can expand that, not only with the private investment but also federally. So we’re actually able to leverage every penny that the province puts in, privately and federally.

It’s really exciting. But we’re also competing with a lot of different jurisdictions as well.

E. Foster: When you talk about investment by the government, I don’t notice anywhere that you’ve commented on the size of the cheque that we write to the film industry every year to subsidize their labour costs, which is substantial. Then when you compare us to other provinces…. This is the problem that we get into. We’re trying to balance a budget here. It was a race to the bottom with the tax….

I mean, it’s not even a tax break. It’s a cheque to subsidize wages. Ontario did better; we did better. Ontario did better. At that rate we would break the country. That cheque goes to Los Angeles, most of it, every year to subsidize the labour.

Now, it’s a huge sector — don’t get me wrong — because the size of the cheque is huge, but I think all those things have to go into the conversation when we’re talking about public funds.

B. D’Eith: We don’t get a tax credit in the music industry. Ontario does. We have zero for tax credit. But Liz can talk a little bit better about that.

L. Shorten: I mean, it’s a global business. If British Columbia wants to be in the film and television business and do service work for international clients, that’s the cost of doing business. We believe it’s, in part, the business that we’re in.

The organizations that we represent are actually companies that are producing their own content. We’d love to see British Columbia be a better balance of B.C. companies developing their own intellectual property, selling that into the international marketplace, bringing those revenues back to B.C. That’s a different business model than service work. A good complementary balance between those two is something that we’re continuing to push for, and we think Creative B.C. is part of that solution.
[ Page 1155 ]

G. Heyman: Thank you for the presentation. With respect to potential added activity for Creative B.C., you mentioned a number of possibilities. In addition to export market research, what specific kinds of research might Creative B.C. do that it’s not currently doing — or currently doing and could do more of — that would be pertinent to the music industry?

B. D’Eith: Well, part of the actual research we need is getting accurate numbers of our own industry in our province and in the country. It’s not an issue that is just in British Columbia. The whole sector needs to do better with numbers. We need that for our purposes, but we also need that for our partners’ purposes.

L. Shorten: Well, I think one of the things we’re trying to identify are profiles across each of the sectors across the creative industries. We have no baseline data other than this PricewaterhouseCoopers study, which was 2009. That’s one of the things that we’re working on. Bob just worked with Creative B.C. on a profile for the music industry. The book industries are next.

B. D’Eith: We have actually finished a music study, but we found quickly how the stats are tough to get. We need a lot of work there.

M. Reynolds: We’re not currently also capturing separate industries that are impacted by what we do either. We have some very inadequate studies on the publishing industry. But that doesn’t count in printing or design or any of those other kinds — bookstore work, distribution, any of that. We don’t have those kinds of statistics that really demonstrate the extent of our industry. It’s the same in all of our industries.

S. Gibson: Super quick question. Technology is changing everything — the paradigm, how people obtain the entertainment and also having it become international. If you want to get some kind of music or any kind of literature…. The students I teach, young people, don’t care where they get it. If they get it from Korea, it doesn’t matter to them. Then the technology’s changing so dramatically that the way that we obtain it is compromised. How do you stay relevant today?

M. Reynolds: I’ll just say one thing. In our industry anyway, piracy — which is what you’re talking about — is actually a very small amount. It’s negligible. We don’t worry too much about it. We want to protect our intellectual property, obviously, but it’s not as big a problem as you might think.

M. Reynolds: As your industry — that’s right. But it’s absolutely crucial. You’re right. I mean, one of the things that we’ve been struggling about in our industry is: how do we manage to diversify with very limited funds, capitalization? And we’ve done a very good job of doing that in the book industry.

B. D’Eith: Well, I’ll just jump in. In terms of the music industry and film and television, obviously, models are changing. But it’s still very important where the content is owned, because the real value that has developed over time is the copyright and the intellectual property. That’s why we want it to stay here. In fact, it’s an advantage.

The technology has allowed local companies to distribute globally. And a lot of the big companies that had the control over that distribution now have less control, which actually is an advantage.

J. Shin: I’m just curious to find out from your diagram here: where in the sector do you observe the most amount of growth or the most contribution as far as employment, GDP, or if there is any industry that you feel is under-realized at this point?

L. Shorten: Well, I think the interesting thing is that each of our industries is at a different stage of maturation. I think film and television, certainly in terms of jobs, is the largest sector, for sure, in the province. But I think the growth of digital media and interactive — I believe the last study I saw was 1,000 companies in British Columbia, small businesses in that sector — is part of the growth for the province.

S. Hamilton: I’ll be quick. I’m not even going to ask a question. I’ll just make a comment regarding what Eric said a little earlier with regard to, essentially, the rebate program for the film industry. Without a comparative analysis, this doesn’t mean anything to me. If you could provide us with some follow-up information comparing apples to apples, I’d appreciate it. It’d help me make a decision.

D. Ashton (Chair): As you can see, we do have a lot of questions, but we have a time constraint because we go till seven tonight. I would really encourage you, if you take some of the direction of the questions…. If you can top those up and get us another submission by the 17th — that’s Friday, if I remember correctly — we’d really appreciate it. It does give us an opportunity to go through it before we make the report.

I do apologize. We have presenters coming forward till seven tonight, and every minute counts. Thank you very much for coming today.
[ Page 1156 ]

Up next we have a Simon Fraser student association. It’s regarding the Graduate Student Society at SFU.

Please come forward, Chardaye. Welcome. Thank you very much for coming. We have ten minutes for your presentation — I’ll give you a two-minute warning — and then five minutes for questions or comments.

C. Bueckert: I’m just going to keep track of my own time here as well, if that’s okay.

D. Ashton (Chair): Okay, but I’ve got it here, and this is the one that counts. Thank you. Go ahead.

C. Bueckert: Great. Thank you so much for having us here today. We really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you about some of the ideas that we have.

The five main things that we’d like to touch on today are: our ideas for funding for the B.C. open textbook program, transit funding for SFU’s three campuses, addressing deferred maintenance at SFU, core institutional funding and the creation of a graduate provincial scholarship. Then finally, just touch on the financing for the Build SFU project that our student society is currently engaging in.

Just as a bit of an introduction, my name is Chardaye Bueckert. I am the president of the Simon Fraser Student Society. This is Pierre Cassidy. He is the campaigns, research and policy coordinator for the Simon Fraser Student Society. We represent the approximately 30,000 undergraduate students that attend SFU at the Burnaby, Surrey and Vancouver campuses.

Just before we get into the substance of the presentation, we want to take a moment to thank the government for the large $1.93 billion investment in post-secondary education this fiscal year. We’d also like to thank the government for its continued support of the U-Pass program, which is utilized by over 90 percent of the undergraduate students at SFU.

Then finally, we’d also like to thank this committee for their recommendation in last year’s report supporting the expansion of SFU’s Surrey campus to an additional 2,500 full-time-equivalent seats. We think that given the growth in the Surrey region, this would be of great benefit to the potential students of SFU and the province as a whole.

You’ll see in front of you…. We’ve prepared a report that is a high-level summary, and then as appendixes we’ve attached fuller proposals on deferred maintenance as well as the creation of a graduate provincial scholarship. What will follow is just a bit of a high-level overview of our ideas. Then, hopefully, you can review the reports for more details.

The first thing we’d like to talk to you about is the B.C. open textbook program. As you may know already, B.C. is the first province in Canada to fund the movement towards open educational resources, which we at the Simon Fraser Student Society really applaud and are incredibly supportive of. We have a large campaign running right now where students are encouraging professors at SFU to get involved with the program by reviewing books and considering customizing content.

You’ll see that we have a few figures included in our report that just talk about the expansion of the program, the uptake that it is having, as well as the large savings that our students are realizing. You’ll see that over $300,000 has already been saved by students with this program. We think that’s fantastic.

As you see reflected in figure 3, uptake at research-based institutions of these textbooks is not occurring. While students at some of the colleges in the province have savings up in the five figures — for instance, $43,000 at Kwantlen — research-based institutions are not realizing these same savings.

In our conversations with faculty members and administration, they’ve expressed to us that customizing these books to suit their specific courses is challenging and is a barrier to participation. We feel that the government has already made a sizable investment in this program, and it’s really great, but we’d like to see more uptake at research-based institutions.

The recommendations that we have for the committee are making funding available to help faculty members customize these books for their courses and also making funding available on a long-term and sustained basis for the program so that these resources can be kept current and updated regularly to ensure that they are usable.

The next thing we’d like to talk to you about is core institutional funding at Simon Fraser University. We have a few figures included in our report here, but since 2010, funding levels have been cut or remain stagnant for SFU. This has occurred while domestic student enrolment has actually increased. These cuts to the core operating grants, which constitute about two-thirds of the funding of SFU, are having adverse impacts on students, and ultimately the costs do roll down.

The one thing I would like to note is that SFU has incredibly low administrative overheads. It is only half of the national average of post-secondary institutions and is only about 8 percent of its operating budget. This means that there are not a lot of places that the budget can be cut that do not impact students. We do feel that these levels of administrative overheads do exemplify the principles of efficiency and fiscal responsible that the Premier has identified as a priority in her mandate letter to Minister Virk.

We also feel that maintaining operating funding levels is really important for universities to be able to produce the university graduates that are very important to B.C.’s economy. You’ll see some figures that we’ve pulled from Work B.C. Over 350,000 new jobs that will be created from now until 2020 will require a university degree.
[ Page 1157 ]
This is about 35 percent of new jobs.

We acknowledge the government’s priorities that were laid out in the B.C. jobs blueprint, but we feel strongly that having university graduates being able to be produced by institutions is really important, and this is evidenced in the figures before you there.

We also feel that producing university graduates is very important to the government’s stated mandate of labour stability. In the worst economic downturn in recent decades we saw that university graduates maintained employment rates 26 percentage points higher than their counterparts that did not have a post-secondary degree.

What our recommendations are in going forward are either keeping SFU’s core funding levels at the same amounts or, ideally, returning them to 2013-2014 levels. We also ask that the government keep its strong commitment to funding post-secondary institutions and only cut the operating grants of post-secondary institutions if they fail to meet administrative or efficiency targets, because ultimately these costs do roll down to students.

We’re seeing at SFU that international student fee increases are being counted upon to address budgetary gaps. We understand that domestic students have a 2 percent cap, and we would not have an interest in having that lifted at all. We really do appreciate the 2 percent cap for domestic students.

International students are not subject to that same cap, and, as such, international student fees have been increased by 10 percent per year over the last three years. But this is not a sustainable way to meet budgetary shortfalls if SFU wants to continue to be a competitive location, to attract international students and help government achieve its goal of doubling international student enrolment by 2016.

The next thing we’d like to talk about is increased funding for transit. While we understand that TransLink is responsible and that there’s also an upcoming regional transit referendum, we would just like to take the opportunity to discuss the merits of improved transit funding to SFU’s campuses as well as to express the interest that our members do have in public transit.

You’ll see in figure 8 that our students live across the Lower Mainland, in ridings such as Richmond, Burnaby, Surrey and Vancouver, as well as Coquitlam. You’ll also see that the length of the average commute to SFU’s campuses is nearly double the national average. As such, it is a major priority of our student society to encourage funding for improved transit.

One project that we’ve been specifically talking about is the Burnaby Mountain gondola, which had a business case prepared in 2011. It has a very strong business case. It would be of great regional benefit, by freeing up over 57,000 service hours in other parts of the region, reducing 7,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions every year by reducing half the bus traffic up and down Burnaby Mountain. If you factor in the elimination of a $10 million required bus upgrade, which would be avoided, the project would be cost-neutral over 25 years.

We feel that this is just one example of a very, very worthy project that could be funded with increased funding to transit. It would also help address other issues that we’ve seen, like inadequate service levels as well as pass-ups. You can see more details there.

The next thing I’d like to talk about is deferred maintenance. I know that in our presentation we talked about this last year, but it is really important. We feel that taxpayers have made a major investment in SFU’s Burnaby campus. But by not funding the routine repairs and upkeep that is required for the campus, that investment is not being protected.

There are plenty more details in our full package there. But I just want to stress that according to figures provided by the Ministry of Advanced Education, there are over $114 million in deferred maintenance costs in SFU’s academic buildings alone — this doesn’t include residences, athletic facilities, infrastructure like sewers and roads — and that $20 million a year, at a bare minimum, would be required to protect the investment that taxpayers have made in our Burnaby campus.

While $2 million was allocated in 2013 to funding deferred maintenance, this is not an adequate amount of money. We feel that that funding level should be increased, but there are also several other non-monetary steps that committee members could make, such as encouraging that maintenance costs be included in the budgets for funding new buildings in the province of B.C.

The next thing we want to talk about is the creation of a provincial graduate scholarship. Again, this was a recommendation, coming out of the committee last year, to fund. We just want to again express our support. There are more details in the full funding package, but we feel that this graduate scholarship would help attract elite candidates and make B.C. more competitive in promoting its knowledge economy.

The final thing we wanted to talk to you about today is the financing for our student union building. Currently we are trying to obtain financing for this project — it has faced several constraints due to the government reporting entity rules — and are seeking approval from the Ministry of Advanced Education for an institutional mandatory fee to help us save millions of dollars in interest costs.

There is more information included in the packages that you’ve been provided. Just seeing that we’re short on time here, I just want to put that to the committee as well.

D. Ashton (Chair): Chardaye, good presentation. Pierre, thank you for coming also. I just want to compliment…. Very well done. It was very quick and very thorough, but it gives us an opportunity to see what you were speaking about.

M. Morris: Being a rural B.C. boy and looking after the interests of rural B.C…. A lot of the money that’s needed for infrastructure improvements, transit and whatnot for the Lower Mainland comes from the resource sector, which is rural B.C., and 70 percent of the wealth of the province is generated in rural B.C.

In saying that, we also have several post-secondary institutions throughout rural B.C. as well that are underutilized. I look at the commute time and whatnot that you have here. If we have students going to UNBC, they’re not facing these same hurdles that you have down here.

A lot of the problems that I see in the post-secondary institutions down here are the result of the increased population, everybody wanting to go these institutions. But we have choices in the province. As a government we have to look at that as well.

If there are available spaces at UNBC or Thompson Rivers University or some of these other post-secondary institutions, is it prudent for government to look at directing students to those before we start investing in other infrastructure in the Lower Mainland here? What’s your view on that?

C. Bueckert: I’m sorry. Is that in regards to the expansion of the Surrey campus or just in general?

M. Morris: All of them. You have a lot of students going to the institutions down here, and they’re disregarding the other institutions that we have scattered throughout the province.

C. Bueckert: Well, I think, in regards to Surrey specifically, it is an incredibly fast-growing region and the demand for those spots is going to be there regardless. I think, as the figures show here, post-secondary education is going to be in high demand throughout the province, so we’ll certainly hope that the institutions in northern B.C. are being utilized.

As it stands right now, a large percentage of the population is concentrated in the Lower Mainland, and particularly for students who are looking to save money, potentially still living at home as they attend post-secondary education, that is a big benefit of staying within the region. But having said that, we do hope that the spots in northern B.C. are utilized as well.

G. Holman: I just wanted to thank you for your presentation. You may not be getting as many questions from this committee as, perhaps, other presenters because we have heard from students, faculty associations, etc., from universities and colleges throughout British Columbia. You’ve hit many of the same themes here, so I just wanted to let you know that you’re making your point. Your presentation was excellent.

I particularly liked the gondola idea. That is unique to Simon Fraser, and I think your argument is bang on in terms of the class neutrality and emphasizing that. So thanks for coming today.

C. Bueckert: Great. And then if you have any further questions or want to follow up, I’ve attached contact information for both of us there.

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you, and if you have anything further to add by Friday, October 17, we can take more input.

Just before we start, Susan, you’ve heard we have ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll give you a two-minute warning. However, we notice in your presentation material that you have “Not for Distribution.” This is a public venue.

S. Owen: Yeah. Actually, that was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, so that has now been released to the public.

D. Ashton (Chair): Perfect. Thank you. Have a seat. You have ten minutes, and I will give you a two-minute warning.

S. Owen: I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak. For myself and others, the issue is our personal financial burden and the unnecessary burden on our health care system caused by a controversial illness: third-stage Lyme disease.

Lyme is an infection that one can get if bitten by a tick carrying Borrelia. This is an active infection that, if not caught early and effectively treated, disseminates throughout the entire body, becoming a chronic, systemic infection which is very difficult to treat. Lyme disease can be very disabling. It takes away one’s quality of life,
[ Page 1159 ]
career, social activities, health, savings, etc.

A startling fact is that those with second- and third-stage Lyme disease are forced to pay privately for their treatments, many turning to the U.S.A. for help, as I have, as Canada’s health care system fails to provide treatment.

In the spring of 2004 I was 32 and working as a nurse with my bachelor’s degree. I developed flu-like symptoms and an odd rash. I ached all over, and I was extremely tired. A doctor noted a bite in the centre of my bull’s-eye rash and attributed my rash and flu-like symptoms to being a strange reaction to a spider bug bite, dismissing me without treatment.

I didn’t know that I should have requested antibiotics and that an expanding bull’s-eye rash was 100 percent diagnostic for Lyme disease; that ticks were very active in the spring; that they can be as small as a poppy seed; and that they can be found almost anywhere. The doctor never mentioned the possibility of Lyme or its many symptoms, despite the fact that I had a textbook case.

A friend of mine, also a nurse, noted the unusual expanding rash with central clearing, but as the redness was fading and my flu-like symptoms were dispersing, we both thought that everything was resolving. Instead, my problems were just beginning.

My muscle and joint discomfort, as well as my extreme fatigue, began reappearing episodically, and I rapidly gained weight for no reason. I did not think to blame it on the bite but blamed it on heavy patients, bad body mechanics, working 12- to 16-hour shifts, etc. Six months later I finally came to my senses and realized that something was really wrong.

I dropped from 12-hour shifts to eight hours then moved from hospital work to community home health nursing. I had also been dropped by the clinic I had been attending since birth, even though I had surgery pending.

In June 2007 I was advised to go on sick leave. Due to student loans and car payments, I had very little savings when LTD cut my coverage off. In January 2011 they claimed that I didn’t have a concrete diagnosis, and the private investigator showed that I attended multiple medical appointments, went grocery shopping and visited my brother. They claimed that this activity demonstrated that I could work full-time. They did not see the naps that I had to take.

The years of specialist appointments, MRIs, lab work, tests, etc., proved far more expensive to the medical system than what it would have cost had they diagnosed me with Lyme and treated it effectively.

I used my personal savings on gas, physio, medications, insurance letters, parking, etc. I’ve had many diagnoses, such as kidney impairment, tachycardia, tendinopathies, polyarthritis, fibromyalgia, elevated inflammatory markers, bone marrow inflammation, etc.

I was finally accepted on CPP disability. This was the only thing that saved me. My extended medical coverage and LTD premiums took up more than half of my CPP disability.

I was left with a mere $300 a month for medicine, gas, parking, physio and other living expenses. Obviously, I had to go without many needed items, including many medications. I had to borrow from my elderly parents and rely on them for food and shelter — all because I had not been diagnosed properly and had not been able to receive effective treatment.

There are thousands more Canadian sufferers of Lyme with similar stories. This does not say much for our medical system. I had great hopes when they announced the opening of the complex chronic diseases program. I was the fourth person through the doors.

After more than a year it still is not offering research or treatment for those with Lyme. Instead, they offer cognitive behavioural therapy, relaxation, meditation, nutrition, etc. Not one of these is a treatment for a bacterial infection. Numerous research studies have proven that Lyme is a persistent, difficult-to-culture bacterial infection.

No one seems to be holding the complex chronic diseases program accountable for fulfilling its mandate. By July 2014 it still hadn’t any written guidelines for treating Lyme disease. Perry Kendall, chief medical officer, assured me I would receive treatment at the program. However, I’ve yet to receive treatment that I so desperately need or been put on a clinical trial.

We need financial assistance for Lyme sufferers to get treatment elsewhere or a law passed to prevent doctors from suffering consequences for treating us under the ILADS guidelines. Canadian doctors are unable to offer effective treatment due to the fear of being harassed, suspended or losing their licence. Canada offers only two to four weeks of antibiotics, mainly orally. Germany offers a year of IV antibiotics, or more if needed, and that’s for chronic Lyme.

I have read that one needs three months of treatment for every year since infection. Early detection will therefore result in large savings. But those who already have Lyme need to be treated immediately.

Health Canada should insist on doing tick surveillance in B.C., as they do in other provinces, rather than relying on reports from the BCCDC. Other provinces report growing tick infection rates — such as Alberta, which has gone from zero to 20 percent infected ticks — while B.C. rates have remained at less than 0.5 percent for decades. Although its climate is more conducive to ticks, the U.S.A. now admits to over 300,000 cases a year, and to my knowledge, ticks do not carry passports.

The complex chronic diseases program needs new, unopinionated leadership and increased funding and needs to be held accountable for developing better test methods, research studies, diagnosing, etc. They did not even send a representative to the ILADS Conference where the latest discoveries were discussed. They should also be
[ Page 1160 ]
held accountable for following the mandate, which came about from the Schmidt report, a very thorough, factual document only made accessible to the public through the Freedom of Information Act.

Dr. Bested tried to follow the mandate, but she got nowhere in obtaining approvals for research studies, treatment, etc. She was demoted as a medical director and left the program, as did several other doctors. Over 1,400 patients were left on the wait-list. This demotion just sends a clear message to doctors not to accept Lyme sufferers as their patients, and not to acknowledge their illness or treat them.

Doctors must be free to treat patients without harassment, or the government must finance new effective testing, such as the ELISA, and then pay for Canadians to be treated elsewhere.

Thousands of Canadians need your help. The next victim could be someone that you know and love. It could be your children or anyone — or your pets.

I’ve included with my submission the copy of the recommendations that was obtained through the freedom-of-information report from the Schmidt report. I’ve also put in several recommendations that I have that would be beneficial to those suffering from Lyme disease. There are many more.

I’ve met children with it. I know there are at least four nurses in our long-term disability meeting that have it, and it’s just not getting recognized. I’ve even been to one doctor that says: “There’s no such thing as Lyme disease.” He doesn’t believe in it. You know, what is that?

G. Heyman: Thank you for your presentation. We’ve had a number of them on Lyme disease. In your opinion, or those of other people who have been coming to the presentations as well as meeting with MLAs, is there a jurisdiction that you specifically believe has a model for diagnosis and treatment?

S. Owen: Right now, I feel Germany is the leading country in treating and diagnosing Lyme disease. They have better testing. They’ll treat chronic Lyme with a year of IV antibiotics, and if the person relapses, then they will give them some more. They have pretty good success rates.

Well, Susan, thank you very much for your presentation. These are very personal, and we do appreciate you coming forward. So thank you.

S. Owen: And I’d like to say, too, it doesn’t speak very…. For myself, I’m a registered nurse with my bachelor degree, and if it wasn’t for the support of friends and family, I could be living in a dumpster. And that does not say much for our government or our medical system, for that to be the situation.

D. Ashton (Chair): We will. That’s important to us. It’s a very short time frame to try and absorb everything, so we do appreciate it when you bring it forward like this.

Up next we have the Fraser Basin Council — Dale Parker and Colin Hansen. Gentlemen, thank you. Welcome.

Sir, welcome. Thank you very much for coming today. We have ten minutes for the presentation, five minutes for questions or comments. I’ll give you a two-minute warning. Please, the floor is yours.

C. Hansen: Thank you very much. First of all, my name is Colin Hansen. I’m the chair of the Fraser Basin Council. This brings back memories of the last time I presented before the Finance Committee, and that was, I think, in 2009, which was a very, very difficult year for everybody.

C. Hansen: No. Actually, I was presenting as Minister of Finance at the time. That was a year of many challenges.

I know we’re short on time, so first of all, I want to start by introducing a fellow board member on the council, the chair of our finance committee, Dale Parker; executive director David Marshall, who’s been with the organization since its inception; and Adriana Ruso, who is our chief financial officer at Fraser Basin Council.

It was about last December when I was approached by David and asked if I would take on the role of chair of Fraser Basin Council, following in the footsteps of Charles Jago, who had served as chair for eight years, and before then some eminent British Columbians. Iona Campagnolo was the first chair. Jack Blaney, Patrick Reid
[ Page 1161 ]
and Charles Jago — it was indeed an honour to be asked to follow in their footsteps in this organization.

It’s a great organization. I’ve known about it since its inception in my time as a member of the Legislature. I said yes and accepted this responsibility because of that track record and the ability that they have, really, to foster collaboration around British Columbia.

I just want to set out a few things very quickly. The history goes back to 1997. Initially it was focused on the Fraser Basin, which is about two-thirds of the land mass of British Columbia, but in the last five years it’s broadened its mandate to include the entire province. We’ve done some projects in every corner of British Columbia.

It’s a not-for-profit organization. It has a staff of 33 individuals. We’ve got five regional offices around the province, which really can be very effective in meeting some of those challenges on the ground.

I think what is most important about the Fraser Basin Council is its ability to respond to change, whether we’re talking about the crisis of the week involving climate change, which we have lots of examples of around the world and in this province, or whether it’s going to be the crisis of the month or next week or next month or next year. That still is as now unforeseen as to what that might look like.

There are other aspects of change; for example, the Supreme Court decision on the Tsilhqot’in decision, which fundamentally changed the way governments and our society interact with our First Nations communities around the province. Those are the types of challenges that Fraser Basin Council can respond to very nimbly and very efficiently.

In terms of our structure, we have 38 members on the council, three from the federal government, three from the province. Regional districts have a total of eight representatives. First Nations are eight representatives. And what we call civil society, sort of general members, has 16. Yet the organization works by consensus, and it does work. It’s a phenomenal organization, in allowing people to move forward.

Part of what our pitch today is — and David will take it from here — is that organizations like the Fraser Basin Council can be very helpful to government as government tries to meet its public policy challenges and its community consultation challenges. One of the reasons why we can do that, first of all, is that we are an incredibly nimble organization. We’ve got a phenomenal staff that is incredibly resilient and has networks throughout the communities.

We often talk about new initiatives, and the first thing that has to happen is building community trust or building relationships. We’ve already built those relationships throughout the province that allow us to actually go in and move very quickly on a certain file.

We think that we’ve been of service to government over the years, and we would like to continue to be of service to government in an increasing way. I think as government looks to how it meets its challenges, I think organizations like Fraser Basin Council can be extremely effective as an outside organization bringing that work to government rather than government necessarily trying to find capacity in-house — which, of course, we know is stretched.

What you have there with you is not only the slide deck that we’re presenting to you — you can follow along with us — but also our annual report from 2013-14, which also gives a little bit more detail on the examples that I’m just going to take you through.

Just before we do that, obviously, being a finance committee, you’re interested in finances. Our pie chart just shows you the basic partnerships and networks that we’ve developed over the years and how we’ve leveraged those partnerships and just where the sources of dollars come from, from four orders of government, including First Nations, as well as foundations, corporations, industry, and so on.

What sort of things do we do? Colin has already talked about the fact that we’re basically a problem-solving organization. We don’t take positions on specific policies. We try to facilitate constructive solutions. We’re a sustainability educator. We try to help with conflict resolution and so on.

To give you some of those examples, the Britannia mine one is one that you’re probably very familiar with. It used to be the largest point source metal pollution problem in North America. Through our efforts over the years we were able to bring the groups together and try to find a practical solution, which we have. People come from all over the world right now to see that and see the difference that’s happened.

You’ll see in the two slides, the before and after, it just gives you that sort of impression of what was really done in getting a water treatment facility in place and solving that issue. Even the fact that we’ve got pink salmon coming back for the first time in 50 years is a very remarkable indicator.

The other one that we wanted to touch on is the Invasive Plant Council of B.C. It’s now the Invasive Species Council. We were the forerunners to bring all the different players together to try to solve an issue that was going to get worse and worse. We’re seeing evidence of that right now when you look at just the economic losses of invasive plants to our crops and rangelands, totalling up around $65 million in 2008. Again, another critical investment to solve a really critical issue.

Another one we’ve been involved with…. It’s interesting, because I was here before this committee about three or four years ago on our Fraser salmon and watersheds
[ Page 1162 ]
program, which was a program that lasted for about six or seven years, and $13.6 million was funded to enable 300 projects and 100 delivery partners throughout British Columbia, not just on the Fraser system, that focus on watershed planning and salmon habitat.

The next one we wanted to talk on is just the various programs we’re involved in. We’re involved in changing climate issues. We’re involved in watershed issues. We’re also involved in sustainable and resilient communities and regions.

On the air side, we’ve had significant involvement in dealing with the climate change issue, especially as it relates to transportation. I think most of you know — I know John knows, in his former work with the climate action secretariat — that the transportation sector produces 40 percent of emissions to our atmosphere. So we decided we’d focus on that particular sector.

As a result, we have a flagship program that’s not only in British Columbia but in Canada. It’s called E3 Fleet, and it’s the first and only program which certifies organizations with large fleets of vehicles. Our Plug In B.C. has been extremely popular and extremely effective in ensuring that we have infrastructure for electric vehicles that are being promoted by the provincial government in the province.

Our Lower Mainland flood strategy is one we’ve just launched this summer. We want to avoid the situation that happened in Alberta last year, where the dollars run $6 billion to $7 billion of losses right now. We’re trying to put in place a collaborative strategy from Hope to Richmond and White Rock to Squamish that will avoid those losses.

Our sustainable communities program enables us to work very closely with the First Nations communities in our community forums as we continue to try to make sure that we forge those relationships with First Nations communities.

In closing, as Colin said, we believe that we’ve proven to be a very effective investment as far as a provincial government partnership over the years, the 17 years of our existence — an excellent return for taxpayers’ dollars — and we feel we can do more. Thanks very much for the opportunity.

G. Heyman: Thank you for both the work you do and the presentation, and welcome to the committee.

I should know the answer to this, but I don’t, which is why I’m asking. Has the Fraser Basin Council entered into any of the issues surrounding transit expansion in Metro Vancouver or anywhere else in the province with respect to helping to facilitate discussions or doing any analysis of the cost-benefit impact, of doing it versus not doing it, on the economy as well as all the other reasons that transit is advisable and desirable?

D. Marshall: Most of our work has been working with TransLink, trying to see what we could do to help maybe create some safe tables and look for different ways and how we can look at better ways of sustainable transportation — and not just looking at the environmental or the emissions side but the economic and socioeconomic as well.

As Colin mentioned at the outset, our vision is basically social well-being supported by vibrant economies and sustained by healthy environments. We make sure that all three of those dimensions are at each of the tables.

The other side of it is we’re working very closely right now — and you talked about transportation on the land side — on the marine side. We’re just now going to start working with Port Metro Vancouver and looking at underwater noise impacts on mammals, especially whales, due to increased ship traffic in the Georgia Strait.

E. Foster: Thank you very much. Living in the community that boasts the most easterly spawning grounds of the Pacific coho, I appreciate all of the work that your council does.

Two questions. We’ve run into a lot of trouble in our area with bank erosions and so on from speedboats going up and down the rivers. We’ve really struggled with it in our part of the North Okanagan, so I’m kind of looking for some support on that.

The other question, as I read through all your information: what’s your ask here?

D. Marshall: Our ask? I guess our ask is basically to point out that we have a great track record. We’ve established these partnerships. We believe we can do more. We think the Finance Committee can take the message to your colleagues at the cabinet level to say: “Look, here’s an organization that’s ready. It’s positioned well. We don’t need to reinvent it. Maybe there’s additional work that we can send to the council.”

C. Hansen: I’ll just add to that. Going back to 2009, it was actually the year when government, because of the financial constraints, had to eliminate a lot of the core funding for not-for-profit organizations around the province. I know in the case of Fraser Basin Council that was tough. I think as we start to see a bit more stability in future revenue projections — I know it’s still incredibly tough — this may be a time that some of that core funding, as opposed to the project-by-project funding, could be re-established.

I think, in particular, the message is, as government looks to…. There are always more demands on government than there is capacity. Rather than rebuilding in-house capacity, government could, I think, get far more
[ Page 1163 ]
bang for the taxpayer dollar if it looked to nimble outside organizations that can do strategic work on behalf of government — rather than trying to build that capacity in-house.

E. Foster: You realize, of course, that all those cuts were the fault of the Finance Minister of the time.

S. Gibson: I can see the Fraser River from my house, which is kind of a treat. I get a little piece of it there, to view it.

My question is…. The wheels of commerce, the shipping — and other transportation — is being compromised now up the river in terms of gravel, because of the gravel deposits making it impossible. What’s Fraser Basin’s position on that, doing some minor dredging between Abbotsford and Chilliwack to allow again the free movement of transportation outside the freshet period?

D. Marshall: We see that particular issue as very prominent in this Lower Mainland flood management strategy that we’ve embarked on. We can probably give you a more specific answer in another 12 months, because we’re actually looking at that particular issue right now. We’re having consultants look at it. We’re trying to create some safe tables to make sure we can come up with the best solution possible. As you know, there are different points of view on whether gravel is an effective form of flood management or not.

Just a quick question, and I’m sorry if I missed it. What is your current provincial funding?

D. Marshall: The current provincial funding right now is…. We don’t have any core funding, so the money we get from the provincial government right now is by doing stuff like Plug In B.C., where we’ll compete on requests for proposals. We did some work for the Ministry of Health on the human health risk assessments of oil and gas development.

There’s no more core funding coming from the provincial government. It’s strictly through a competitive process. The odd time, the provincial government, because of the points that Colin mentioned earlier — that we’re well positioned to do some work, and our uniqueness enables us to do that — will contract us directly.

G. Holman: Sorry, you’re suggesting that going forward, that’s still the basis upon which you want to work, as opposed to having a core…?

D. Marshall: Well, we’ve been able to survive, so that’s the good part about it. At the same time, we could be much more effective, in being able to deliver on some on some of the key issues facing the provincial government, with some enhanced contributions.

C. Hansen: Maybe I can add to that. Just to give a case in point, when the Mount Polley breach happened, it was…. We have an office in Williams Lake. Our staff in that office were basically on that file within hours. Now, the problem was, in terms of…. Our ability to do more proactively on the day that it has to happen is limited. For most of these kinds of things, we have to go out and identify the funding before we can actually launch things.

In that case, we have a great regional director there. I think she was probably putting in 14-hour days there just to stay on top and make sure that everything, from a purely…. It was at a time when nobody trusted the industry and nobody was trusting government. It needed sort of an objective, trusted third party to be able to come to the table and examine how things were being monitored.

Now, we were able to respond to that, but it was difficult because we didn’t have that reserve funding that we could call upon to move even quicker in a case like that.

D. Ashton (Chair): Sorry, I have to cut you off. I do apologize. We’re well over.

D. Marshall: I was just going to say Britannia wouldn’t have happened if we didn’t have that discretionary money.

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you very much for coming today. I do apologize for the shortness of it, but we have to fair to everybody. If you do have any additional information, we have until Friday to accept it, so please it bring it forward.

We have ten minutes for the presentation — I’ll give you a two-minute warning — and up to five minutes for questions or comments.

B. Qualey: Thank you very much to the committee and all of you for taking the time to hear from us today.
[ Page 1164 ]
I think you’ll see a little presentation being circulated to you. A couple of other documents just to bring your attention to. We recently released, early in the month, the update of an economic impact study that we had done based on 2010 numbers. We’ve updated this now, just with the support of MNP. It’s a pretty good news story, which I encourage you to read. If you want the fulsome document, it’s attached — economic impact study.

Some of the highlights of this good-news story. B.C.’s new car dealers are alive and well, contributing close to $11 billion towards the provincial economy, with some 36,000 jobs, up 7 percent from the last report.

There are upwards of, close to, 400 new car dealers doing business in the province. We represent the vast majority of them. They pump about $1.9 billion in direct GDP into the economy and do business in some 54 communities around B.C. Provincial sales tax collected per year from the auto sector is about $679 million.

In Canada one in seven jobs is tied to the automotive sector. Interestingly, the average earning for an employee in our industry in British Columbia is about $1,000 a week, which is about $461 more than the average weekly retail earnings in British Columbia.

I mentioned the annual sales of $11 billion. This year we’re expecting another record year for sales of vehicles. Last year was almost 184,000. We’ll be likely breaking the 200,000 vehicle mark this year.

You’ll see a slide there of a sample of some of B.C.’s new car dealers around the province, in a variety of communities — many of them communities in your ridings.

Challenges before us. A strong economy helps people buy cars, helps dealers build dealerships and upgrade their dealerships. Keeping taxes and regulations low is something that we applaud strongly. We ask government to keep them low to help dealers conduct their businesses every day in those 54 communities.

Property assessments have been an issue for a number of our dealers, and I would ask the committee to have a look at what might be done. The next-best-use rule that’s being used by B.C. Assessment Authority…. Often, in cases, the next best use is a condo tower. The challenge for a number of our dealer members is that they’re on a lot of property and they’re getting charged the next best use when, in fact, they aren’t able to use the property for that.

Going forward, I think this industry continues to face a couple of challenges beyond property assessments. We’ve estimated that somewhere in the order of 20,000 jobs are going to be coming up and available in our sector with just our almost 400 new car dealers in the next decade. Now, trying to meet that 20,000 jobs is going to be a big challenge for our industry, for our members and for government. Fortunately, the government has listened to us.

We applaud the review of the ITA and the restructuring, and we’re working closely with them, but this whole area is going to be incredibly important for the success of our sector going forward. Our industry is now a profession, almost. It’s a high-tech business, and it’s going to require some pretty sophisticated technicians. I don’t know if you’ve looked underneath the hood of any newer cars these days, but it’s a little more challenging than it might have been in the days when some of us crawled under our cars and fixed our own carburetors. You ask a new technician today what a carburetor is, and you get a blank stare.

Aside from the issue of jobs and trying to fill those and working with the fine educational institutions in this province to help us do that, we’re back again to ask the committee to have a look at the luxury tax. We’ve reached out to this committee and government a few times. The luxury tax continues to be charged on vehicles over $55,000.

My members continue to ask me why our industry is being picked on when other, what might be considered, luxury items do not attract a luxury tax — particularly in the north, where pickup trucks can easily run you over $55,000. You are capturing, in a work vehicle…. It’s being used by somebody that’s having to pay a luxury tax on it. By the way, it’s not just the base price of the vehicle that’s looked at there. The sale price, the PST-able luxury tax price is when you add running boards and other pieces of equipment. That helps to bring it into the luxury tax level.

A couple of other things. We’ve had the pleasure of being one of the big supporters of the SCRAP-IT program over the last number of years. SCRAP-IT has scrapped almost 32,000 vehicles since 2008 — probably closer to 40,000 if you go way back to the beginning of that program. It continues to be supported by new car dealers who make a contribution as part of what incentive goes to the person that’s trading in an older, more polluting vehicle to purchase a more fuel-efficient, less polluting vehicle. We’re also seeing that those people also have the choice of a transit pass or a bike.

We continue to look for ongoing support from government to help that program continue and be successful in reducing emissions in this province and helping to get some of these older, polluting vehicles off the road.

The clean energy vehicle program, which we had the privilege of being asked by government to manage and administer, ended in the spring, I guess in March. Regrettably, we’re seeing a falloff in the sales of qualifying electric and other vehicles under that program since the tank ran dry, as it were, back in the fall. It was a very effective program, one that was lauded around North America and around the world as a very effective program.

Other programs of incentives continue in this country, some as high as $8,000 per qualifying vehicle. Those programs will attract the attention of the manufacturers and, thus, the availability of those kinds of vehicles. The
[ Page 1165 ]
last thing we’d like to see is people in British Columbia now not being able to get them because the vehicles are not available for sale in this province.

Just a couple of quick comments of summary. We would recommend the elimination of the luxury tax from trucks and ask that the limit on all vehicles might be, if not eliminated, at least raised to what might be considered a luxury level — and that perhaps other luxury items be looked at as well to help on the fairness side of things.

The SCRAP-IT program. We’d ask for ongoing and continuing support from the government to help fund that. And the clean energy vehicle program. I hope that government will continue its discussions on what might be done to help continue to incent people to make that choice available. It’s now available as the result of the great technological advances in our industry.

That’s just the quick review for you. Thank you very much for your time. Look forward to questions.

E. Foster: Thanks, Blair. One of your comments…. I just want to make the note so I get it right. How can government help your industry with the shortage of 20,000 jobs? What would be your suggestion there that we might be able to do?

B. Qualey: Well, there are many layers to that particular onion, but I think…. We’re faced with a number of institutions in the province that have long waiting lists to get people in. As an association representing 400 car dealers around the province, we’d like to stand on a mountaintop and talk about how terrific this industry is for people to come into. We’d like to be out telling young folks, their parents and other influencers to consider our sector as a terrific place to work and have a long-term and successful career in British Columbia and perhaps across the country.

The concern is that we’re going to run into some pretty big bottlenecks in the educational institutions in this province. There are some who have long waiting lists, if you want to be a technician, an automotive technician. There are some that don’t have waiting lists, and there are some reasons for that. We’d like to see support for further seats, further apprentice program spots.

This is a very sophisticated business now. It’s not the business of our parents and grandparents — the plaid-jacketed, greasy used car salesman image. This is now a very high tech, very sophisticated professional business. To try and make sure we have enough people — whether it’s salespeople, management or skilled technicians — is going to require a lot of effort, not just from the K-to-12 side, advanced education and our members who are already feeling the pinch of the grey tsunami that’s going through.

G. Heyman: Thank you for your presentation. I realize there are a lot of factors that go into whether people buy a vehicle or not, but in your experience…. I think you cite 1,370 electric vehicles were sold over the life of the credit program. Did you see…?

B. Qualey: There were close to 1,000 sold as…. Just to clarify for you, there were 13,000 registered, but under the program there were about 1,000 sold — that qualified under the program.

G. Heyman: Okay. So my question is: over the course of the life of the program, did you see the number of vehicles sold per year ramping up, and have you seen it tail off after the program was cancelled?

Yes, there was a dramatic increase. I mean, one of the challenges…. The program came into place in the fall of 2010. A lot of the vehicle manufacturers did not have inventory available at that point. So we went through a period of time where the incentive was there, but there were no vehicles available to buy. Now we’re at a place where we’ve got the vehicles and no incentive. So that’s a bit of the challenge.

B. Qualey: No. I think it started, if I recall, way back in ’97 at $32,000 or $33,000, so it was ratcheted up. It hasn’t been adjusted for quite some time.

S. Hamilton: Just to clarify, does that apply to the difference above $55,000 or the full amount of the vehicle?

B. Qualey: No. When you hit that level of $55,000, the PST rate goes from 7 percent to 8 percent.

B. Qualey: And then there are more layers to that. It can go up more.
[ Page 1166 ]

S. Hamilton: Can you give me your Coles Notes regarding this property assessment next best use? It’s something kind of new to me, and I’m surprised that they’re actually assessing on what you might be able to do with the property.

B. Qualey: We’ve gone back and forth and had a number of cases where dealerships…. In the comparators that are used by the assessment authority, they always look at the next best use of the land as where the assessment comes in. For somebody on Marine Drive in Vancouver, that could be a condo tower, and you’re assessed the property value on that basis as opposed to what you’re using it for. That’s how the assessment is…. That particular model is very challenging when you’re a car dealer.

S. Hamilton: For brevity, could I ask that you provide the committee with more information regarding that, because I’d like to research it a bit more.

B. Qualey: Yeah, we’ll be happy to give you copies of submissions we’ve given to the assessment authority in the past.

Just quickly, looking at the numbers…. This is where George is getting the 1,370 vehicles — $14.3 million. I get over $10,000 per vehicle there.

B. Qualey: Oh no. The $14 million was the total envelope that was given under the clean energy vehicle program, which also included money to put charging stations in place.

G. Holman: Okay. Just quickly, is there any kind of PST exemption on electric vehicles at this point?

B. Qualey: No. There used to be one on hybrids, etc., that went away around the same time that the HST came in. Since that time, we’ve never seen anything come back on hybrids or electric vehicles.

Thank you for putting a French car on here. I haven’t seen one of those for a long time. I think that’s a Renault or a Simca.

My question is in terms of the trucks. I was just up in Dawson Creek and Fort St. John. Virtually every vehicle is a truck, and they’re used for work. Looking at your appeal, what percentage of the pickup trucks sold — if the committee was to make any kind of recommendation — is used for work use and what are used just simply for personal use as a second vehicle for domestic duties? That’s my question.

B. Qualey: I’m not sure that we would have that kind of detailed information available to us as to which is a truck used by a spouse to go grocery shopping versus the person that’s going out working on a rig somewhere. He might use that as well, so I think that would be…. Suffice it to say, a lot of trucks are sold in this province and this country. Unfortunately, a vast majority of them can capture luxury tax.

D. Ashton (Chair): Blair, thank you very much. If you have any additional information, please get it to us by the 17th. It would be greatly appreciated.

Up next, we have Family Services of Greater Vancouver — Caroline and Michael. Thank you very much for coming today. We greatly appreciate you being here.

We have ten minutes for the presentation — I’ll give you a two-minute warning — and five minutes for questions or comments. I would just caution you to maybe keep your comments and the questions as short as you can because there are a lot of questions today, and I’m having to cut people off. Thank you. The floor is yours.

C. Bonesky: Hello. My name is Caroline Bonesky, and I am the CEO of Family Services of Greater Vancouver. This is Michael Davis, and he’s one of our volunteer board directors as well as the chair of the Board Voice.

A little about Family Services. Since 1928 we’ve been helping families through challenging times in their lives. We offer support, provide hope and present opportunities, helping people to realize and create possibilities for themselves.

Board Voice is comprised of volunteer boards of community social service agencies from across British
[ Page 1167 ]
Columbia, and it’s dedicated to creating strong and vibrant communities with high-quality social services by providing a clear and effective collective voice for those volunteer boards.

The first thing I want to say to you today is that we are not here to ask you for money. I’m going to turn it over to Michael now.

M. Davis: We are here to suggest that there is a better way to address the social issues accompanying rapid economic development, to solve some of B.C.’s seemingly intractable social problems and to make better use of the resources that we have while getting better outcomes for British Columbians.

Over the past year 19 municipalities and 35 social service agencies have endorsed the call for the province of British Columbia to begin developing a social policy framework. This call has also been endorsed by the Burnaby and Surrey boards of trade.

Good community health is good for business. This is not an urban or rural issue. It impacts growing small communities as well as our large urban centres.

We believe that a social policy framework for B.C. is the way forward. So what is it? Social policy framework is an aspirational document that lives at the highest level of government, an overarching set of legislation and directives from the highest level of government. It’s a product of a provincewide consultation between government, NGOs and the public about how we want to treat our children, our seniors, new Canadians, people with developmental challenges. Indeed, how do we all want to live together?

The purpose of the social policy framework is to clarify what we are trying to achieve through our social policy, how we’re going to get there, what the roles and responsibilities are for the participants; to coordinate the activities between government departments; to harmonize work between government and other stakeholders; to ensure that there’s policy alignment and consistency; and to influence and guide our collective work, providing overall direction to planning and decision-making.

A social policy framework provides government and partners with a tool for focusing social policy priorities and actions for ten to 15 years. A social policy framework could have, as core components, goals, a vision, outcomes that are measurable, principles, roles and responsibilities, and specific initiatives. A social policy framework will enable rapid economic growth without creating the Fort McMurray scenario. It can help create communities that attract businesses, where families want to live, that are safe, where there are opportunities for kids to play and learn and be supported when they have challenges.

A social policy framework could begin to address some of B.C.’s most serious and longest-running social problems, like child poverty and low-income rates, food insecurity, long-term employment, violent and property crime, and mental health needs. And it could begin to take a strategic approach to the looming issues like health care for our aging population and addressing the skilled-workforce shortage.

Your own ministries and agencies are talking about the need for a whole-government approach. For example, in conversations with RCMP, they describe how they can see individuals coming up through the system, first in the schools through social workers involved in domestic violence and abuse issues and in the emergency wards of the hospitals.

They describe the informal sharing of information between police, nurses and social workers as risky, and they are desperate for a whole-government approach to crime prevention, but they cannot see the way to get there. A well-thought-out and implemented social policy framework is the way.

“When looking at the outcomes articulated in the HFBC policy framework, it is impossible not to consider how the other sectors, such as education, agriculture, transportation and housing, influence and connect to them. These linkages and impacts are underlying factors that influence how healthy or unhealthy individuals or populations are. The success of the HFBC policy framework is contingent on ongoing and strengthened collaboration with partners in other sectors. A whole-of-government approach that creates space to identify where the linkages exist and facilitates collaboration and joint planning across ministries and sectors will help ensure that all the participants are able to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.”

C. Bonesky: What we’re proposing here is not pie in the sky, dreaming and scheming. The elements of a social policy framework described earlier are from Alberta’s Social Policy Framework, which was created after a provincewide consultation and was enacted into enabling legislation in February 2013.

The social policy framework can move the bar on big social problems. Ontario created an Ontario poverty-reduction strategy in 2008. As part of that, they laid out eight measurable goals, and they have consistently measured progress against them. We’ve included a chart in the presentation which shows that they are continuing to mark progress against birth weight, school readiness, high school graduations, low-income measures. These are real, measurable outcomes for dollars being spent.

M. Davis: This kind of success will not happen by tinkering at the mid- or operational levels. It will take leadership and support from the highest levels of government. There are only a few offices and ministries that can actually reach across all of government. You can recommend that existing resources within ministries be dedicated to beginning this conversation.
[ Page 1168 ]

You can begin a process to imagine what our province could be if this conversation moves forward — a place where people and communities are stronger; where communities can cope, even thrive, with rapid economic development; where families have the resources to provide healthy childhood development; where people have appropriate education and skills to get meaningful employment; where all of our citizens, First Nations, new Canadians, low-income families, have places to socialize and safe places to live and play; where people living with developmental disabilities have the supports they need and, when people need them, appropriate health services are there; a province that is stronger because every individual and every community can contribute to their highest ability.

C. Bonesky: This is what a social policy framework is about, and we’re asking you to recommend redirecting some existing resources to begin a provincewide consultation that would lay the foundation for a made-in-B.C. social policy framework and call on the Premier to begin this process. There is a better way, and you are the people that can start to make it happen. Thanks for listening.

It’s a little off the topic, but Keeners Car Wash is the first social enterprise in Canada. How did you get it going? How would you say it’s worked out? Is it making you some money?

C. Bonesky: Well, Keeners has a couple of bottom lines. One of them is to provide employment opportunities and skill development for youth. We’ve created a lot of employment for youth. We’ve actually saved more than $1 million of water, and we’ve got locations across the Lower Mainland. We’re doing quite well, actually. We’re out at UBC; Metro Vancouver; Modo, the car co-op. We’ve got a lot good, solid contracts and customers.

C. Bonesky: If you want to look at the pure bottom line, no, because we have to provide additional supervision. The marketplace price that people will pay for a car wash and the additional supervision that we need to get the skill development in for the youth that we’re employing — that gap we’re still covering with….

D. Ashton (Chair): We’re not surfing up here. We’re seeking out additional information. Many of the members do.

C. Bonesky: Absolutely. Happy to provide it. Anybody who would like to know more about it, please contact me.

G. Holman: Thanks for the presentation. Really interesting strategic approach that you’re suggesting. Not having any background in the area, I’m just wondering: how would it start? You make a reference to certain ministries. How would one kick-start this? Would the first step be kind of developing a strategic plan? How do we get this started?

M. Davis: I would point to the Alberta example. It started with a white paper coming out. They had a bit of an advantage in Alberta because they have that kind of super ministry of what they call human services. They put out a white paper on what a social policy framework might look like. Then they took that out to a provincewide consultation and, out of that, developed the basis of the framework.

How it would happen in the B.C. context is a really interesting question. I mean, it has to have political leadership, and I’m not sure where you go for that to reach right across government other than the Office of the Premier.

M. Morris: Good presentation, and something I fully support. It needs to be a collaboration between social services and Justice and Health and a whole bunch of things involved there.

We had a presentation a couple of weeks ago from a child poverty advocacy group out of the Lower Mainland talking about child poverty and the high rates that it has in here. You know, 81 percent of a person’s income, on average, in the GVRD goes to accommodation or housing, and whatever is left over puts them in the range of poverty.

Do you guys collaborate with other agencies throughout the province here? In Prince George, where I’m from, 31 percent of your average salary goes to that. We’ve got all kinds of work available in the Interior. People seem to be trapped in some of these communities in the Lower Mainland, and they don’t see the broad picture here. That’s where I see where agencies such as yours can help and collaborate with other agencies. Do you do much of that?

M. Davis: Yes. Board Voice has got over 70 members right across the province. Prince George — we’ve been on the TV up there, actually, when the municipal coun-
[ Page 1169 ]
cil endorsed this call. I’m familiar with the agency that you’re talking about on the child poverty issues.

I think one of the things that we want to say here is that while we may hold dear some of those objectives, this is about a framework. This is about coordinating, and it’s about setting out those goals. What the goals are that go into the framework is entirely up to the people that participate in it, right? It’s up to the ministries, the government, the non-profits and the public.

What we really want is the framework so that we can articulate the goals, so that we can measure against the outcomes, so that we can have language that goes across the ministries, so that we can measure across the ministries. I mean, you guys know this does not happen right now.

S. Gibson: Very good information. Thank you for your presentation. The area under social policy framework — I see no mention of addictions. Certainly, as I get to know more and more people, I find out that addictions are a huge part of our culture that sometimes is hidden. So I would strongly recommend that that be a part of your list. It probably is — another list — but it’s not on one of your major points here.

To me, every time I turn around…. A friend of mine in Abbotsford — his son is on crystal meth, and nobody knows about it except me and the dad and a few friends. That’s the kind of thing that I think we need to add to this, because this is compromising families and compromising relationships, the capacity to look out for each other.

The other thing we’re doing is we’re over-professionalizing everything. We don’t have: if I run into a problem, I can call my buddy Scott and we can talk about it. Now everything’s professionalized. I’ve got to have somebody — a therapist or a counsellor. The whole family unit, the sense of community is being compromised. That’s a part of what we’re missing, and I hope we don’t lose that.

M. Davis: Yeah. One of the core pieces that came out of the consultation, the Alberta piece, was the responsibility of family. It wasn’t all about “we need.” It was also about what our responsibilities are across the way, and I think that speaks a bit to your piece.

D. Ashton (Chair): Caroline, Michael, thank you very much. If you have any additional information you’d like to put forward….

D. Ashton (Chair): Yes, there is — and by Friday the 17th. We need it by the 17th.

D. Ashton (Chair): If there’s anything that you think is pertinent to us making a decision, please forward it to us.

Sir, welcome. Thank you very much for coming today. We greatly appreciate the input that we’re about to receive. You have ten minutes for a presentation. I’ll give you a two-minute warning, and we have five minutes for questions or comments. As you can see, we do ask a lot.

Hello. My name is Scott Olson, and I am the chair of the Light Rail Links Coalition. We’re based here in Surrey. I’m also the past president of the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board. I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to present to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. We have an immense amount of respect for the work that this committee does to ensure that the priorities of British Columbians are incorporated into the provincial budget.

Today I’m going to give you some background about the Light Rail Links Coalition and our mission and to ask for the province’s support in moving the light rail transit, or LRT, project forward. Just to note, copies of my presentation have been provided to the group for ease of reference.

As committee members from the Lower Mainland may be aware, the Light Rail Links Coalition formed as a result of the growing movement of like-minded individuals in groups advocating for LRT to connect communities south of the Fraser. Our coalition is a broad-based group of 16 member organizations. They include businesses and developers, community groups, the Surrey Board of Trade and many others. In addition, we are collaborating with groups at Simon Fraser University and the Kwantlen Student Association.

Again, as members of this committee may be aware, we support the city of Surrey’s LRT vision and their proposed routes, and our goal is to demonstrate to the B.C. government and the federal government as well as TransLink that there is widespread support for LRT and that funding LRT should be a top priority.

As most British Columbians know, we are growing rapidly in Surrey. By 2041 our population will grow by 50 percent, from 500,000 to 750,000, and we will add 150,000 new jobs. When we see these numbers, it is clear that we need rapid transit now to keep pace with the growth that we currently see and we are expecting to see. We need to plan for the future.

We know that this government has been a great sup-
[ Page 1170 ]
porter for the Lower Mainland region, and in past years we have seen some fantastic investments in the transit system, such as the Canada Line and the new Evergreen line. We also understand the importance of road and bridge projects, like replacing the Massey Tunnel and the Pattullo Bridge, for improving the overall transportation capacity in our region.

That being said, transit is underfunded south of the Fraser, and it has been for a long time. The last rapid transit investment in Surrey was in 1996. Since then 200,000 people have moved to Surrey.

Each year Surrey contributes approximately 20 percent of TransLink’s municipal funding, but service levels in Surrey have been and continue to be lower in comparison to other municipalities. As a result, we need more rapid transit infrastructure, and we need it quickly, to catch up to other areas, to serve our growing city and to support economic development.

This, among many other reasons, is why we support the city of Surrey’s LRT project, and we are confident it is the right technology for south of the Fraser.

LRT will not only connect communities; it will create pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods integrated with new developments and businesses. Moreover, LRT is used around the world. In North America, cities such as Calgary, Seattle, Portland and Los Angeles all have LRT. Toronto, Ottawa, Brampton-Mississauga, Kitchener-Waterloo and Hamilton are working to build LRT. Many places in Europe also use LRT and have for a long time. It is truly a globally-preferred method of rapid transit.

LRT is considered a high-quality rapid transit for a number of reasons. It provides a smooth, comfortable and quiet ride. It is high capacity. It is accessible, with easy, no-step boarding. Finally, service will be fast, frequent and reliable.

We know that residents and businesses in Surrey want LRT. A recent CitySpeaks survey that was conducted by the city confirms what we have already been hearing for some time from our coalition members and from members of the public. The survey shows that 90 percent of respondents support LRT for Surrey, and from the same survey 83 percent of the respondents agreed that funding Surrey’s LRT network should be a priority for the provincial and federal governments and for TransLink.

We think that these numbers are very compelling. A significant majority of people in Surrey prefer the at-grade LRT system and want it a funding priority for you, the provincial government.

At a higher level, LRT is good for Surrey’s economy. It will attract mixed-use development, support economic competitiveness, reduce congestion and free up roads for goods movement. In 30 years Surrey will be the largest city in British Columbia. With its proven abilities to attract development and support economic growth, LRT can shape Surrey into the province’s next major metropolitan centre.

A considerable amount of work has been done to date by the city of Surrey, TransLink and the province on the LRT — specifically, the Surrey Rapid Transit Study, which was sponsored jointly by TransLink and the province. This study involved an extensive review of numerous routes and several rapid transit technologies, including LRT and SkyTrain. The study identified four short-listed options, of which the city of Surrey’s proposed LRT network was included. These short-listed options were evaluated against multiple factors for their benefits and impacts.

In June of this year TransLink’s Mayors Council reviewed the short-listed alternatives from the study and adopted the city’s LRT network in their ten-year transit plan. We think this is great news, and we are committed to supporting the Mayors Council vision for investing in transportation in Metro Vancouver.

To move this project forward, the city has made an initial application to P3 Canada for federal funding for the Surrey LRT project. In early October the city was informed that the project has been verbally screened in for funding consideration. To complete P3 Canada’s requirements for a full application, the city will partner with TransLink to prepare a P3 business case. This is a very positive step toward securing federal funding for the project.

To conclude my remarks, I would like to ask for this committee’s support and, by extension, the province’s support. LRT for Surrey is estimated to cost approximately $2.14 billion, and the project is currently unfunded. It is our understanding that this project will likely be funded using a traditional split-funding model with contributions of approximately $700 million from the B.C. government, the federal government and TransLink.

We think this would be a very smart investment in the south of the Fraser region and a key asset for the province to have for the long term. We’ve recently sent letters to key MPs and federal ministers, as well as local MLAs and the Minister of Transportation, to make sure that all parties are aware of our advocacy. As we move toward the municipal election, we have met with or heard from the top Surrey mayoral candidates, and all are supportive of LRT.

Moving forward, we would like to ask the province to make funding for Surrey’s LRT project a top priority in the budget. We will be meeting with provincial and federal elected officials in the coming months to ask for their funding support.

If you would like more information or to follow our coalition’s activities, please visit our website, www.lightraillinks.com. Thank you very much for the opportunity to present to the committee today.

G. Heyman: Thank you very much for the presentation. You talk about the economic aspects of ensuring
[ Page 1171 ]
that there is light rail transit, rapid transit, south of the Fraser with a growing population. A number of boards of trade have said there’s a tremendous cost to congestion and the impingement on the ability to move goods and people in a timely manner.

I’m wondering if you have access to or are aware of any Surrey-specific or Metro Vancouver–specific studies that quantify the economic cost — either benefit or cost to the economy of not providing transit versus providing transit. If you do, if you could make links to those available to the committee by Friday, then they can form part of your submission and our consideration.

S. Olson: I will make sure that you have that information sent to you. I don’t have that in front of me right now, but I will have that sent to you very quickly.

J. Yap: In terms of the cost differential between light rail and SkyTrain technology, what is that cost differential? Second question: is this going to be, or have you had discussions to include this option, in the coming referendum on transit?

S. Olson: I don’t have the numbers for what it costs to put SkyTrain in. What we do know is that it is significantly cheaper, but we don’t have those numbers. You as the province actually have better access to those numbers than I do.

In terms of getting this put into the referendum, we will be lobbying for that. We are supporting the mayors’ vision for the ten-year transit plan, of which LRT is a cornerstone, and it is supported by the mayors as well as TransLink. I hope that answers your question.

D. Ashton (Chair): Light rail. In your statement, light rail is substantially cheaper than SkyTrain technology. Is that right?

S. Olson: Yes. I can’t give you an exact figure, but we know it is substantially cheaper.

D. Ashton (Chair): Okay. It’s just how you said it. I just wanted to confirm it.

G. Holman: Thanks for the presentation. Just a quick question on the operating side. Once it’s built, what does it look like on the operating side in terms of cost recovery, I guess, with or without carrying costs on the capital? Do you have some sense of that?

S. Olson: Unfortunately, I don’t have that information. Those kinds of technical questions will have to be asked of the city of Surrey. They’re the ones who have access to that information. What information might be available I can look up for you and have sent to you, though, and actually add that as part of our presentation.

D. Ashton (Chair): That would be good. Before the 17th, sir, please, if you don’t mind, so that we’ll have it.

D. Ashton (Chair): Scott, thank you for coming today. I greatly appreciate it. Thank you for the presentation.

Welcome. Thank you very much for coming today. Ten minutes for the presentation — I’ll give you a two-minute warning — and then we have five minutes for questions or comments. Avi, Lornell and Shanti, the floor is yours.

A. Kay: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. On behalf of our READ Surrey/White Rock Society, my colleagues and I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to sit before you here today.

My name is Avi Kay. I’m a board member and branch manager with Envision Financial Credit Union. My colleague Lornell Ridley is our chairperson, as well as a volunteer tutor. Our colleague Shanti Ang is our amazing literacy outreach coordinator.

READ Society is one of a network of literacy task groups throughout British Columbia. We work to raise awareness of literacy in our community, and we run a one-to-one adult tutoring program. Our main source of funding has come from the Ministry of Education, in the form of literacy coordination funds. This money covers a part-time coordinator position, although there is easily enough work for a full-time person.

We rely on the Ministry of Education for our core funding, to ensure competent staff to carry out our mandate. Like many other task groups, we look for other sources of funding, seeking donations and partnerships within our community of Surrey and White Rock so that we can stretch our dollars as far as possible.

We are here to speak to you because we respect the democratic process and the work of this committee. We are happy that people in communities are invited each year to tell you about what is needed.

We want to thank you for the recommendation that you made last year about annual funding of $2½ million for community literacy work in British Columbia and are extremely hopeful that the government will be able to fund this amount, if not more, giving us the opportunity to continue to do our good work. We are grateful that the Ministry of Education provided $2 million at the end of the 2013-14 fiscal year. Though it is less funding than required, it is helping us this year to run literacy and learning programs in our community. These are unique programs that support people who are not served in other ways.
[ Page 1172 ]

S. Ang: No funding has been committed for the 2014-2015 fiscal year and beyond. This makes literacy work in our province unstable and uncertain. We are reaching the point where difficult decisions are going to have to be made about how to support people who require literacy assistance.

We’re very disappointed that your committee’s recommendation about literacy funding was not accepted by the government. Nonetheless, we’re not giving up on the select standing committee process, and we hope that you can still help us. We know that you believe in the work we’re doing.

The positive impact of literacy funding to communities as a whole cannot be denied. It affects everything from health care to employment to the economy. Increased literacy rates improve a community’s ability to participate in today’s B.C. jobs plan.

Before coming to work in Surrey–White Rock I was the literacy outreach coordinator in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows, and that was for three years. In addition, I regularly network with other literacy coordinators in the Metro and Fraser Valley areas, and I hear what they’re facing.

Although our particular community details may differ, I know that all communities in B.C. face the same literacy challenges. Task groups around the province use their funding to reach all parts of the community, whether it’s adults, youth, children and families, seniors, aboriginal people or immigrants. Despite the difficulties, we do know that our work makes a difference.

L. Ridley: As a volunteer tutor, I’d like to share with you a story of the student that I’ve been helping.

Upon landing in prison yet again, a 53-year-old man sat in his prison cell with his head in his hands, praying. His prayer asked God to please either let him die or help him find a way out of the life he was leading. He was a drug and alcohol addict. He fed his habit by stealing. He would get caught, put back in prison, serve his time. He would get out, and the cycle would start all over again.

The last time he was caught, his wish of finding a way out of the life he was living actually came true. The opportunity was given to him. He was brought before a judge for sentencing, and he was given a choice: to stay in prison and serve his time, or he would have the opportunity to work with a drug court system — a special parole group that Wally Oppal was instrumental in setting up a number of years ago.

He thought: “Wow, my prayer has been answered.” He was absolutely shocked. He grabbed at the opportunity for this life-changing experience. Working with his team of people, including the parole officer, he challenged himself to become a better person, a healthier person in many ways, and to learn to read.

This man was my student. He was a big 53-year-old drug and alcohol addict and very well-informed in the ways of prison life. To say that I was intimidated in meeting him would be an understatement. I’m only five feet tall.

My student came to our group as a person who was educated in Canada — actually, in B.C. He dropped out of school before he completed grade 9. When we met him, he was able to identify three letters of the alphabet. He was determined to be able to read and write by the time he ended his parole in a year.

We spent two hours every week reviewing words and their meaning, reading, and repeating the process to about the nine-month period. He then began to write simple sentences. Soon he was able to fill in and complete forms — with my help, looking over his shoulder — and he learned to use the computer and to send e-mails.

Somewhere along the way he shared with me a couple of other goals that he had in his life, and they were very personal ones. One was to meet and get reunited with his sister and his mother. His father had passed away a number of years earlier. That goal was achieved.

His second goal was in regard to a lady that he had met. Like himself, she too had been through the system. She was determined to change her life, as her goal was to look after and be a good mother to her two kids. Admiring her strength and her tenacity, my student set his goal high. He worked hard, determined to be able to read and write before asking her out.

Today my student is married to the same lady and has adopted her two children. He has a job, and he is a poster boy for the drug court system because he just did so well. Instead of costing us, as taxpayers, more than $53,000 a year to incarcerate him, he is now a law-abiding, working and taxpaying citizen of our province. I’m extremely proud to be associated with him, and he’s been an absolute joy to work with.

In closing, I would like to say: please find a way to better support literacy in B.C. This is one life that had changed for the good. Imagine how many lives the government of B.C. can change by continuing programs such as these, where in the long run they will be saving thousands and thousands of dollars. Please help us help others lead more productive lives.

We are not here to ask for more money in these difficult times. We are here to ask the government to continue to provide the minimum amount of funding required for the coordination of literacy programs: $2.5 million, according to the recommendation that your committee made last year. This year we got $2 million, so we have a concern about not being able to fund our literacy coordinator for the whole year.

I want to thank you for your past support and your time, and we look forward to your continuing support in the future.
[ Page 1173 ]

M. Morris: Just a comment more than anything. You had a good presentation. We’ve heard from many literacy groups throughout the province here, and everybody is equally as passionate about their program as you are and has some equally good stories. I just want to say we’ve heard the message, and it’s something that I see the benefit in myself. Certainly, we’ll be taking everybody’s comments into consideration when we do our deliberations.

G. Heyman: I’d just like to echo Mike’s words and thank you for the presentation and, to all of the community literacy organizations, for your great tenacity but also for bringing examples of how each program in a community is tailored to the needs of that community as well as examples of the great return on investment for a relatively, compared to some other requests, small investment in the community.

Up next we have the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia. Doug, welcome. Thank you very much for coming today. We have ten minutes for the presentation — I’ll give you a two-minute warning — and then five minutes for questions and comments.

D. Baer: Okay, thank you. I’m reading from a prepared text, and it is my proclivity to speak quickly when I do so. I apologize if I’m reading a little bit more quickly than you’re used to hearing people read.

Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to present to you today in person. My name, as the Chair mentioned, is Douglas Baer. I am the president of the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia, which represents five research-intensive universities in the province.

The first thing I want to say to you today is that, from our point of view, post-secondary education represents an important investment for the taxpayers of the province. Dollars spent on education don’t just disappear into the air as one-time draws on provincial budgets. They lead to more educated citizens in our population, better able to generate wealth in the province and better able to engage in behaviours which will save governments money in the future.

When it comes to employment, we know that university graduates are less likely to be unemployed than non-graduates. Recently released census data support this contention specifically in the province of British Columbia. In the last census this amounted to a difference between 5.5 percent unemployment for those without a university degree and 3.9 percent for those with a university degree, with even lower numbers for people who have graduate degrees.

In the July 2014 labour force survey the number was 3.82 percent for those with a bachelor’s degree versus 4.46 percent for those without. Then that number, 3.82, dropped to 2.57 for those with graduate degrees.

My numbers all appear lower than the numbers you will see in official Statistics Canada reports because I used as a denominator the entire population.

There are also differences for labour force participation amongst those in B.C. aged 25 to 65. For those without degrees, 72 percent participate in the labour force. For those with degrees, that number is 79 percent.

Those with university degrees were not only more likely to be working, but they also made more money when they did work. In July 2014 this amounted to a $4-an-hour differential, with an additional $5 premium on top of this for those individuals with postgraduate degrees. It would be my observation that postgraduate education is becoming increasingly important in the knowledge economy. For the development of the capacity of this province to have a skilled workforce, postgraduate education has an importance that it didn’t have 30 years ago.

The business about university graduates doing better even applies to graduates in the arts, humanities and social sciences. In statistical models I constructed using census data, trades and community college graduates make very close to $10,000 a year more than those without post-secondary training. It’s $10,000 expected additional income.

University graduates make another $10,000 over that, and those with postgraduate degrees make considerably more than this. Even university graduates in the lowest-paying degree categories — bachelor’s degrees in the humanities and fine arts — make within $1,000 of those with skilled trades training or community college education. Those in other disciplines — social sciences, science, engineering or health disciplines — typically make considerably more, even if they only have a bachelor’s degree, to the tune of over $20,000 a year even without a graduate degree.

Now, our valuation of university education should not just concern itself with good jobs paying good wages generated by the entrepreneurial initiatives of creative thinkers with university degrees. In a variety of different ways, university education helps make our cities more livable and helps reduce various social and economic burdens faced by governments.

B.C. university graduates are more likely to volunteer to do unpaid work for charities and community organizations, about 10 percent more likely than those with community college certificates and about 20 percent more likely than those with less education, according to the most recent volunteering surveys put out by Statistics Canada.
[ Page 1174 ]

Regardless of one’s perspective on government spending, whether you are a fiscal conservative or a fiscal liberal, this can only be seen as a good thing. The state, the government, cannot always meet a variety of community needs, whether they be the disabled, the needs of junkies who might otherwise rob houses or the need to fix communities to provide the tourist revenues which attract individuals from outside the province to spend money here.

This is where volunteers are important. They can’t always displace government spending, but they can most certainly make the spending more effective and more responsive to actual needs.

Last year my colleagues Rob Clift and Rick Kool from CUFABC argued to you that people who have higher levels of education are less likely to engage in criminal behaviour and live healthier lives. Let me add something to this.

One of the relationships which stands out in health research involving dementia and Alzheimer’s is that its incidence is strongly and negatively related to education. Better-educated people defer the onset of these and are less likely to display symptoms of these two conditions. Journals such as Alzheimer’s and Dementia, for example, as recently as September of this year, document this connection very well.

These are serious health concerns imposing major financial and emotional burdens on government health budgets as well as families struggling to cope with the problem, and anything we can do to reduce the problem or at least defer its onset represents a big step forward.

I’m arguing that this is just an example of why, aside from the job outcomes that our graduates experience, education is important for the entire economy. Overall, better-educated people are healthier, and this costs the state — that is, the province — less money.

Through all of this, I want to argue that if the province of British Columbia continues to reduce budgets or fails to allow allocations to account for the effects of inflation, there will be significant long-term costs to the citizens of this province. Government funding as a proportion of total university operating costs in B.C. declined by roughly 5 percent in each of ten years from 1981 through 2011.

Your 2015 budget consultation document talks about the knowledge economy and about government paying two-thirds of the cost of running universities while students pay one-third in tuition. In 2011 the province of B.C. accounted for less than 40 percent of the university revenues, according to the Canadian Association of University Teachers Almanac.

Another source, the Canadian Association of University Business Officers, in a report published in June 2014, provides numbers suggesting that this percentage for the year ending 2013 was about 38 percent. This was below the Canada-wide percentage of 40 percent and the 47 percent in Alberta.

The last thing that I want to say, because I see that I’m short of time, is to make a point about our need in this economy to attract graduate students and the problems that are created by inadequate funding for graduate student programs.

The biggest aspect of this inadequate funding is, in my view, the absence of a British Columbia graduate scholarship. Unlike B.C., Ontario provided $30 million in provincial funding this year for the Ontario graduate scholarship program, which gives the best students up to $15,000 a year. Alberta also has an Alberta graduate scholarship program.

In my view, there is no excuse for the absence of such a program. This absence is causing the best and the brightest of B.C. undergraduate students to leave the province upon completion of their undergraduate program.

As I mentioned above, university support from the province has not matched inflationary costs, either in the long run or in the last three to four years, and is not projected to do so, as far as we can tell, with tentative budgeting for the coming two years. This, in turn, threatens the ability of the system to deliver on all the positives, from jobs to better health to better civic engagement, about which I spoke.

The phrase, “you can pay now, or you can pay later,” applies here. The price for not adding at least a modicum of resources to universities today will come back to haunt a future government half a decade or more from now, and in my submission, will be much higher than the price of modest improvements today.

One of the things, as someone who went through graduate programs, is that for the most part, people are working at the same time. So, in my case, when I went through my graduate…. Many of my colleagues were working almost full-time, as I worked full-time for my graduate education.

It’s not a criticism, but I think it’s an acknowledgement that today, given that people who go back as mature students…. Many of them go back to get their graduate credentials. I would say this paradigm – and I say this with respect, sir — doesn’t apply to a lot of students like myself who went back to further their education. I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying, but I think it needs to be moderated with that comment, if you don’t mind me saying so.

D. Baer: Thank you for your comment. I will look into that. It is my impression, but I will find data, that the majority of graduate students, the vast majority, are
[ Page 1175 ]
students who are not simultaneously working because most graduate programs have prohibitions on more than 10 hours of work per week. If otherwise, I will see if I can obtain the data in that regard.

S. Gibson: I did a master’s and a PhD at SFU, all working full-time at the same time. I’m not bragging. I’m just saying that was the paradigm. I couldn’t afford to take the time out.

M. Morris: Good information here, but not enough from my perspective. I’m not the one that measures our success by the amount of dollars that we spend. So there are other ways of looking at the successes of our universities in the province here, and that’s with outcomes.

I’m led to believe that we have some pretty good outcomes across the province in all of our universities, whether they’re research universities or whether they’re some of the more established universities that we have in the province here. And I think we’re doing a pretty good job, so some of the information that you’re presenting here tends to make me believe otherwise.

I’d like to see the metrics behind that. Are we losing graduate students from British Columbia, and they’re going elsewhere? Or are we getting students from other jurisdictions coming to B.C. because they want to go to UBC or Simon Fraser or some of these other ones? That portion is missing from your presentation.

D. Ashton (Chair): Sir, that can be put forward up until October 17. We can take new input.

D. Baer: I doubt, in the absence of our ability to field a comprehensive survey amongst graduate programs in B.C., that I can answer that particular question.

I can answer anecdotally because I myself have sat on graduate program committees at three different Canadian universities during my career, one of which is in B.C. and the other two of which are in Ontario. And I’ve never encountered in my Ontario experience the same sort of thing where there’s a high rate of students accepted to our graduate programs informing us that they’re declining the offer to come to our graduate programs but have decided to go elsewhere.

When it happened in Ontario, the elsewhere was to another Ontario university, but when it happens here, it’s almost inevitably a university in another province — most notably, Ontario, but sometimes Alberta.

D. Ashton (Chair): Sir, thank you very much for your presentation. If you do have any additional information, please, we’d like to get it from you, but we have a cutoff as of October 17.

B.C. Food Processors Association — gentlemen, welcome. James and Rick, thank you for coming today. We have ten minutes allotted for the presentation — I’ll give you a two-minute warning — and five minutes for questions or comments from the board. The floor is yours.

I just wanted a moment to introduce myself. I’m James Donaldson. I’m the CEO and executive director of the B.C. Food Processors Association. I’ll apologize in advance that I don’t have the suave South African accent of my predecessor, Nico Human, for those who have heard presentations over the previous six years. I’m also here today with Rick Gagner, who’s on our board of directors.

J. Donaldson: We appreciate the opportunity to come and present to you today. Our chair, Dave Eto, sends his regrets. He was unable to attend, as he’s in Ottawa this week and next week.

For those of you who don’t know a lot about the B.C. Food Processors Association, we represent all segments of the food, beverage and nutraceutical processing industries. We really have four core focuses: to connect the industry with each other to share ideas and learn best practices, to educate, to advocate on their behalf on issues that arise, and also to inform.

In terms of the B.C. food processing sector, it’s one of the reasons why I took this job. It’s very dynamic, it’s a growing industry, and it’s really characterized by a large number of small processors. Over 90 percent of our members are categorized as either small or microprocessors.

The overall agrifood sector in B.C. is $11.7 billion as of 2012, and the processing sector represents $8.2 billion of that. So we represent nearly 70 percent of the total agrifood sector. I should also add that the sector consists of approximately 1,400 businesses. Again, you’ve got a large number of small members that consist of both our members and of the larger industry.

In terms of initiatives that the association undertakes, we have a series of committees and peer groups that are designed to, again, foster and engage new ideas, new thinking. Also, it helps the association by raising and identifying issues and problems that they can both work on collaboratively and then, in certain cases, for us to bring to our advocacy committee.

We have a number of different peer groups. They are broken up both functionally but also geographically, as we have specific issues for our members on Vancouver Island and also in the Fraser Valley. So we create forums for them to integrate and communicate with each other as well.
[ Page 1176 ]

Just touching on some of the major programs that we’re managing right now. We’ve just recently kicked off the post-farm food safety program. We soft-launched it in August, but it will actually be officially launching sometime later this month with a news release and a launch event. It’s really to help raise the bar for food safety.

It’s of critical importance to the B.C. food processing economy that we have this, because we’ve got so many small members that want to innovate, that want to grow, and they don’t have a lot of the tools and resources to do that.

To be able to be competitive on the global stage and even outside of B.C., they need to be able to have certain levels of food safety certification, so it’s really critical that they have this. This creates a forum and a means for them to be able to achieve their certification. The retailers are also demanding it domestically.

Another major program that we’re doing — which is a Growing Forward 2 initiative similar to the post-farm food safety program — is path to commercialization. Essentially, this is an incubator-type of program to help small businesses and entrepreneurs with new ideas figure out how to commercialize and bring their product to market.

We don’t offer financial support, but we provide mentorship, training and understanding of the market dynamics required. We even help to negotiate them through the regulatory environment in terms of nutritional labelling and testing and what the market dynamics look like.

A couple of the other major programs that I won’t go into as much detail on are the stimulating healthy eating program, which is really about helping to showcase B.C. companies that create products that are meeting the guidelines, and also, the meat inspection system program, or MISP, which is a program that we’ve been managing for several years.

In terms of issues that are impacting our industry, I’ll touch on most of them in a few minutes. But the primary areas of concern that we’re focusing our energies on right now are growth and demand for locally produced foods, which is a growing retail trend, as well as a growing consumer trend. We want to be able to provide that.

Currently our exports…. B.C. is importing more than twice as much food as we’re exporting. There’s a lot of room to be able to grow the domestic market with food that’s produced here.

Also, just challenges to overall and industry competitiveness. I’ve outlined several items in our document — water, taxes, levees for recycling; also, increased foreign competition and retail consolidation. Those are all different market dynamics that are affecting our members at different levels.

We also just need to heighten our industry capacity, which I’ll touch on in a few moments, and a strategy to help commercialize, broaden and increase innovation in the B.C. food sector.

In order for the province to achieve its goal of a $14 billion food industry by 2017…. We’ve summarized the following as opportunities for growth and opportunities for consideration.

One is expansion of the Buy Local marketing program and funding to include processed foods. Last year and this year there was a Buy Local program that was sponsored by the Ministry of Agriculture. It was tremendously successful. It was very well received by consumers, and it was very well received by retailers.

The problem for our sector is that we represent 70 percent of that agrifood sector, and we haven’t been included at all. It has been marketed completely towards the primary agricultural sector — which is of great value to them. But again, when they’re representing $2.8 billion and our sector is representing $8.2 billion, there’s certainly an opportunity to help facilitate that growth and help the ministry, the provincial government, as well as us, meet our mutual goals.

I think that’s a tremendous opportunity and one that has been missing. We’ve shared those thoughts with Minister Letnick, and we hope to continue to reach for that.

Second of all, we really are encouraging government support for increased industry capacity and competitiveness through stronger partnerships with the industry.

Currently there are many different groups and associations that are supporting different facets of the food industry. The concern we have is that for the amount of money that the provincial government is looking at investing into all of these sectors combined, it’s potentially very fragmented. Each group is working independently with the different ministries to be able to achieve their goals.

We feel that there’s a much stronger need for a strategic approach, where, in collaboration from the industry and with all of the ministries — Small Business, Environment, Health, as well as Agriculture — we can work together to sort of strategically identify what those priorities are and how we can work together.

A small example of that is the agriculture venture acceleration program. It’s a brand-new program to help bring technology and help commercialize technology for small processors and agricultural companies. It was launched fairly recently, and the B.C. Food Processors Association didn’t even have any knowledge of it.

We could have provided a lot more input, a lot more value, and potentially provided some context that might have been able to maximize the potential of that program.

Again, comparing it to our path to commercialization program, we’ve got a related program that could have been done in a strategic way to make them complementary to one another. Instead, they were quite independent of one another.

R. Gagner: I’ll just point out that that money was granted to an association that hadn’t actually been in
[ Page 1177 ]
operation yet. So we’re taking it to a start-up organization to launch a program that could sister an existing program.

J. Donaldson: Our third and final point, really, is working with the government to support and fund to create an environment that fuels innovation.

As I mentioned, 90 percent of our members and 90 percent of the industry are small and microprocessors. We really believe that the seeds of innovation are planted with the smaller companies. They can come up with ideas. They’re able to access market niches that larger companies can’t. But we don’t have an infrastructure, really, that fosters that.

We’re the only province in Canada that doesn’t have an innovation centre. Obviously, we used to have a food innovation centre that helped fill some of that need, but overall, there’s not a lot of infrastructure.

There are some programs. I just mentioned the venture acceleration program. We have our path to commercialization. Those are small bits and pieces. But again, more of a coordinated and strategic approach will be really appropriate for helping grow, because we really feel that innovation is what’s going to help the industry continue to grow and exceed our potential.

That was our presentation. We wanted to thank you very much for the opportunity to present to you today, and we’re open to take your questions.

G. Heyman: Thank you for your presentation. I see that you have a couple of generic recommendations for government support, for both the environment and partnerships — no specific or dollar figure. What would be the most significant action the government could take that would help the industry, in your view?

Well, to be frank, the first one is much more of a direct investment requirement, whereas the other was really more of a strategic and coordinated approach. Minister Letnick had mentioned requesting extending $2 million to support the Buy Local initiative for the new budget. I know that was going to go to Minister de Jong. We feel that that would be appropriate if processing were included.

In terms of specific dollar amounts, that was the one that was very concrete. We feel that that would probably be adequate to help support our local products.

M. Morris: Just going back to your second request there. Some of the comments you made make me believe that perhaps some stronger collaboration between like-minded associations within the province is probably necessary so that you have one voice coming forward to government. We do get inundated all the time with different groups coming before us.

M. Morris: Right. So what steps has your association taken to increase the collaboration and market yourself with some of the other various associations and groups that we have in the province?

Coming into this role, I recognize that as a need and an area of opportunity. Obviously, they have nowhere to go but up, because there hadn’t been a lot of collaboration, to my knowledge and from my own experience. I’ve essentially reached out to most of the members of related organizations, and in some cases we’ve had their leaders call in to our board meetings to provide updates.

I’ve been doing the same — for example, the B.C. Ag Council. I’ve appeared at their board meeting. Their executive director, Reg Ens, calls in to our board meeting on a regular basis. We’re really starting to kind of open that dialogue and have those regular conversations. We’ve actually even taken the steps of having our executive of our boards meet, which we did with the Investment Agriculture Foundation. Those types of…. It’s a starting point, and there’s a lot of work that needs to be done.

To your point, that’s exactly what we recognize. The more groups that are coming in with a siloed approach, the more people the government needs to listen to as well, and it fragments their time and their ability to focus and think about the whole piece strategically.

J. Shin: I’m just curious to find out if you can expand a little bit on the issues that are outlined here in the presentation as far as enhancing the food safety especially. I’m curious to find out in what ways you’re recommending what you are thinking. I understand that there are a couple of Asian stakeholders who are worried about some of their fermentation processes being questioned by the food safety procedures — if that’s what you mean generically. If you can expand on that, that would be great.

D. Ashton (Chair): Just real short, James. I have one more question and a minute left. Sorry.

Well, in terms of food safety, certification is really one of the most sure ways, because we’ve got universally recognized standards that the certification process brings. So part of the post-farm food safety initiative is about
[ Page 1178 ]
trying to increase the number of businesses that receive their certification.

J. Shin: Could you just comment quickly on…. What’s the level of certification right now, as far as percentage is concerned?

J. Donaldson: Well, in some cases there’s…. Well, HACCP is the universally accepted standard which we’re working towards.

In that same list of challenges you note ALR changes. Can you just explain quickly what that means?

J. Donaldson: Well, we took part in the ALR consultation process, which was really valuable. On the surface it didn’t appear that there would be a direct impact on food processors, although some of the recommended changes changed what’s allowable on agricultural land without having to go through the approval process.

As an example, one of our members is a pasta producer. They said: “So what would potentially stop a competitor from buying a 100-acre piece of land, planting semolina flour and then putting a processing facility on that, where they wouldn’t be subject to industrial tax rates?”

J. Donaldson: That’s right. It’s ensuring there’s a level playing field. That’s right.

D. Ashton (Chair): James and Rick, thank you for your presentation. If you have any additional information, we can accept it up until October 17.

We have ten minutes for a presentation. We’ll give you a two-minute warning and then five minutes for questions or comments. Once again, nice to see you. I remember you from last year.

M. Gleeson: I’m Dr. Mychael Gleeson, Mychael Co. This is my tenth year here. If you add the royal commissions and the Len Doust inquiry, there have been 19 submissions. I may be, in fact, the single most deleterious advocate for legal aid there ever has been, because legal aid has diminished steadily over the 19 years that I have been advocating for increases in funding.

Now, if you missed the legal aid blackout, which was July 5 to August 8, that could have been because you either didn’t need services or you had a lawyer in your Rolodex. But if you needed legal services during that period of time or, more importantly, you were the child in a home where legal services were required, you were basically screwed because nobody was there.

When I retire in two years, people will probably be living in my carport, looking for me. Right now they look for me at Wendy’s.

The kids that I deal with — and we’re limiting the practice — are children of custody and access problems and family law; kids who have issues and problems with school; mental health issues in the family and children with mental health issues; addictions and mental health issues — those are, in fact, different; personality disorders; family upbringing disorders; abuse and neglect; bullying in the schools, which is on the increase — that is why New Westminster has cops in the schools, which is a great thing; and child poverty.

The problem with child poverty is that it’s multifold. In a family where child poverty exists, we have usually a family that’s unaware of the needs of the child. I have four youngsters right now who are in grade 12. They need graphing calculators. Fortunately, I know lawyers who will still take my phone calls, and I’ve hit up each of four lawyers for $119 each to provide these kids with graphing calculators. These are the kids who will be at university someday but because of child poverty will be doing it with borrowed equipment and used textbooks, old textbooks, textbooks that are of X editions past — kids who cannot benefit from the services of tutors and specialized education.

Last year we sent nine children who were children of poverty to the math Olympiad because they didn’t have the $60 entry fee. If you’re a boy at St. George’s, $60 is probably your weekly allowance, and I have that from St. George’s kids.

The problem with child poverty is that when you marry child poverty with childhood mental health issues and a family that is unaware of how to care for that child, you have a road paved directly to the penal system. The gentleman who was profiled — the 53-year-old gentleman in jail with alcohol issues, with drug addiction issues, who was also illiterate…. Pulling him back from the edge is huge.

What if you’re that gentleman’s child? You have no role model. You have very little to look forward to. You’re going at breakneck speed toward a wall, and you don’t have the options. No one in your family is going to be able to tell you what those options are.

The big trick is for me to keep my kids from selling drugs at the SkyTrain station. When you look at the economics involved in the OxyContin trade with kids, you can buy 100 caps for 200 bucks. You can sell it for close to $1,000. I’m telling my kids to get a job at Wendy’s for $10.25 an hour, and my kids are going: “Are you crazy?”

You take my kids, my kids who have mental disabilities impacting their intellectual ability, it’s very difficult for me to marry one of my kids with a mentor in the community when the family is saying none of this matters. When I meet kids whose family profession is welfare and these kids have been trained to scam the system, we have real problems.

We add to that the New Westminster police in the school. The New Westminster police liaison officer is an old friend of mine, Carmel Keenan. Carmel and I know the same kids. We run into each other in New Westminster, and she says: “Do you know So-and-so?” “Oh yeah, I do.” “Do you have a screen on so-and-so?” “Yeah, I do.” “Do you know what’s happening in his family?” “Yeah, they’re in court.” “Is there a lawyer?” “Well, there’s no legal aid.”

Carmel’s going: “What can I do?” I go, “I don’t know,” and she says to me: “What are you doing?” “Well, we’re going to bring the kid in for therapy.” “Who’s paying for that?” “No one. There’s no legal aid.” Very few eight-year-olds have meaningful employment, so they’re not paying the tab. These are the problems with child poverty.

I have one family where mom is a serial evening entrepreneur. We get her home, we get her straight, we disengage her from her business manager the pimp, and we get her clean and sober in time for her to take in her new boyfriend du jour to screw with the family, to take the family assets. The kids are going, “I need $100 for my book deposit at high school,” and it’s not happening.

They come to me. I hit up lawyers, several of whom will no longer take my phone calls. I wouldn’t take my phone call if I was phoning me, because I’m going to hit them up for money. If you drive a Beamer, I’m going to hit you up for money. That’s the way it is.

We’re at a standstill. With legal aid diminishing, with the judges who are available not having the resources and with child poverty fuelling problems in the family, we have a higher rate of depression and anxiety among younger and younger kids. I’m getting referrals for an eight-year-old who’s suffering depression and anxiety. That kid at ten is going to be non-functional in the school system, by 12 is probably going to be dealing with drugs and will know alcohol, and by the time they’re 15 will be explaining to me the way of the world.

I said to a 15-year-old youngster who was in counselling: “What are you going to do when somebody offers you marijuana? Do you have something prepared?” Her eyes rolled to the back of her head, as my kids always do with me. She looked at me, and she said: “That happened when I was 11. Hello? Where have you been?” I go: “I was here. I may have missed that cue.”

Why present a presentation on poverty? You have the paper. It’s pretty grim. The cover is interesting. I was coming out of Wendy’s with a photographer friend of mine, and we saw this chalk mark on the asphalt. It said: “Give my life back.” So I went to my kids — there are 100 of them, as outlined in this paper — and I said: “What does it mean?” The kids said, “It’s a serenity prayer. If I don’t have drugs and alcohol in my life, it will give me my life back,” and that’s where I’m going. Give my life back — my serenity prayer — if you’re a child.

By the way, it’s always a stark presentation from you, and I really do enjoy it. Thank you.

G. Holman: Thanks for the presentation. I just want to be clear on what the ask is here. It’s to increase funding for legal aid?

M. Gleeson: Bring back legal aid. I would be happy if it were back at the 1981 level. I’d be happy with the 1991 level. My office will close very, very soon because we’ll simply run out of money. All that means is that we go to court with fewer applications, because I can’t quit. They know where I live.

I can’t say to an eight-year-old: “I’m not going to do a custody and access report. Both of your parents are losers, so we have to look at the least harmful option.” I’m not going to say to a kid: “No. I’m not going to do it.” They go: “Oh, do you remember my Aunt So-and-so. You did one for their family.”

I’m now getting the kids of kids that I dealt with in the ’80s. When I have the grandkids coming in, that’s it. I fold the tent and spend the rest of my time mowing my lawn and playing with my dog.

M. Gleeson: We fell off the ladder when we started to diminish legal aid, and as we diminished legal aid…. We no longer have the fabulous people who were on the bench, like Judge Lorne Clare, who understood all of the issues involved.

I am so old I remember family court intimately, when you went in there and you saw a judge who knew exactly the options available for that family. Yes, there was a probation officer involved, and yes, there was a parole person involved, and yes, legal aid provided counselling. That would be me, at the low-end, bargain-basement rate. No problem. But we had services for children, and child poverty was not a part of the mental health spectrum and dynamic that it is today.
[ Page 1180 ]

These statistics are enough to make me hide under the bed for the rest of my life. I’ll take the dog with me, by the way.

My dad, who is a huge influence in my life, would be appalled by these statistics, because he was a man who believed that with education you could do all things. But we have to get them to education. I’m hoping to get several of my kids through grade 7 without doing time.

I had four kids who were suspended from school the first day of school. One kid was a roughneck. Three kids were carrying weapons because they were frightened. I said: “Why didn’t you come to me?” They said: “You can’t be everywhere at once.” I said: “Why don’t you go to your teacher?” “My teacher can’t be everywhere at once.”

The policies in the school: “Never use your hands. Always use words. Go to a trusted adult. Tell your mom. Tell your dad. Tell your counsellor. Tell your teacher.” Kids say: “That doesn’t work when someone’s coming at you with a knuckle sandwich.” I don’t have an answer for that, and I would look large on a school playground.

M. Gleeson: We need better monitoring of our special needs groups. We need better monitoring of the finances. The number of my kids who tell me that they need me to sign documents for school because mom or dad is pissed or stoned…. I’ve got kids telling me that. They’ll come to my office. “Will you sign the note?” I go: “What am I signing?” “I want to go on a field trip, and can I borrow three bucks?” “Yeah, okay. I’ll find three bucks.”

I’ll hit up my computer tech, Michael Thompson, for money. I’ll say: “I need three bucks for this kid to go on….” And then I write it down. “Yeah, I’ll sign it.” I think I sent two-thirds of a grade 3 class to the zoo. The school knows my signature. They go: “You have many children.” I go: “Yeah. Wait until you see my cheques clearing for textbook deposits.”

We spent $420 sending kids back to school, and paper is ten cents a packet at Walmart. So I’m there with my shopping cart making Michael Thompson follow behind me with his shopping cart full of paper for kids, because we’re going to need to send kids back and $420 bought a lot of stuff at Walmart to send kids back to school. Otherwise, they would be there with nothing.

It’s frightening, what’s happening out there: child poverty, the lack of legal aid, the lack of services to special needs adults. And all of them have kids. I know this. I know all these kids. All of these kids say to me: “How do you know if doing this is right or doing this is wrong?”

A kid was in Wendy’s the other day. One of the managers recognized the kid as being one of mine. He came over to the kid and brought the kid a hamburger. The kid said, “I can’t pay for it,” to which the manager of Wendy’s said: “Well, some people say the burgers aren’t very good. It’s yours anyway.” That shouldn’t be happening in the richest province in Canada.

D. Ashton (Chair): Doctor, we’re out of time. Thank you again for a great presentation.

Kwantlen Faculty Association — Gillian and Bob. Do we have them here? Just walked in the door? Perfect timing. Come on in.

D. Ashton (Chair): We have ten minutes for the presentation — I’ll give you a two-minute warning — and up to five minutes for questions or comments from the board. Please go ahead.

G. Dearle: Thanks very much for having us here to speak today. Bob will be coming and joining me shortly.

The Kwantlen Faculty Association represents over 800 faculty who work and teach at our various campuses located south of the Fraser. This region of the Lower Mainland is diverse, growing fast and has extensive needs in the area of post-secondary education — needs that our institution meets every day.

Our enrolment base has grown steadily over the past 33 years, and it now sits at 17,000 full- and part-time students. KPU is the only public, open-access, post-secondary option in the South Fraser area west of Abbotsford. Given the growth in this region, the increase in the number of eligible students in our area has been and will continue to be significant.

When we made a presentation to you last year, we noted that the growth in demand for our programs put added strain on our institution. We said then that many of our programs have wait-lists and that our institution as a whole was running ahead of our capacity limits. Unfortunately, the situation has not changed — or fortunately. But that means it’s strained. We are at about 103 percent capacity this year, so we’re running at overcapacity for the funding we receive.

As a special purpose teaching university, a critical objective of our institution is to provide students with a broad range of post-secondary education options. We offer more than 135 trades, career and academic programs that are designed to meet the changing needs of our students and our community.

While the extensive trades-training programs Kwantlen offers are housed at our Cloverdale campus, all of our campuses and programs work closely with local and provincial employers. We also offer a number of programs designed to meet the unique needs of adult learners, as well as a growing number of B.C. residents who want to improve their language skills.
[ Page 1181 ]

I want to take a moment to talk about that last point — English language training programs. Over a year ago the Ministry of Advanced Education announced that they were cutting close to $22 million in funding support for English-as-a-second-language programs delivered by public post-secondary institutions around the province.

Although the minister tried to characterize the cuts as a result of the federal government’s decision to centralize funding support of ESL, the reality in Canada is that other provinces provide funding support for ESL programs in addition to the support provided by the federal government.

Acquiring a new language is no easy feat. It takes time and careful support from well-trained faculty. Equally important is that by providing high-quality, affordable language-training options and programs at our institutions, we are giving thousands of B.C. residents and new Canadians the skills they need to succeed.

Many of our ESL students are professionals looking to upgrade their English language skills as part of a broader strategy that will allow them to have foreign credentials recognized or new career options opened up. Losing access to ESL shuts the door on those students. They suffer a setback, and B.C. loses many of the needed new skills in the process.

When compared to the ministry’s overall budget of about $2 billion, the amount needed to at least maintain provincially supported ESL programs is modest. Over 300,000 immigrants live in our South Fraser region, including 30 percent of B.C.’s recent immigrants. For almost all immigrants, English is not their mother tongue.

One substantial recommendation we are making is to restore provincially funded ESL in the 2015 budget. As I noted at the outset, funding issues are straining the capacity of our institution to meet the needs of our students and the community we serve south of the Fraser.

The largest single investment that the provincial government makes in post-secondary education comes in the form of a provincial operating grant. When measured on a per-student basis and adjusted for the impact of inflation, real per-student operating grants to public post-secondary institutions have been in steady decline over the last decade and a half. The latest three-year service plan for the Ministry of Advanced Education shows that by 2015-16 real per-student operating grants will have dropped 20 percent since 2001.

I want to talk a little about the need to equitably fund post-secondary education south of the Fraser. Kwantlen Polytechnic University has never been able to provide the level of access to further education that B.C.’s other regional colleges and universities have been able to. The reason for that is the inequality in the way KPU is funded compared to other post-secondary institutions in the region. KPU has never received much more than half the funding per resident in our region that other college regions receive.

Although 21 percent of B.C.’s population lives in Kwantlen’s region, KPU gets only 11 percent of the funding. If KPU were funded at equitable levels, it would have room for 7,000 more students, more of our residents would have good jobs, and our region’s employers wouldn’t have to search elsewhere for qualified employees.

So another substantial recommendation we are making is to provide British Columbians south of the Fraser with equitably funded post-secondary education.

The funding pressures are putting enormous stress on other parts of our system. The most significant impact has been on tuition fees, which have skyrocketed as a result of the declining funds of post-secondary education and the increased costs being passed on to students. B.C. students are the least likely in Canada to study full-time.

Students are taking six years or more, on average, to complete a degree. That’s a four-year degree. B.C. students have set not just a Canadian but a North American record for student loan debt of, on average, over $34,000 after graduation. Yet in 2012 B.C. had the worst young adult unemployment rate of all reporting provinces in Canada.

A further substantial recommendation that we are making is to increase funding to student grants and student services. It is troubling that institutional budgets now rely more heavily on revenue sources other than they do on the provincial operating grant.

Here at Kwantlen, for example, the provincial operating grant accounts for less than 50 percent of total revenues. That wasn’t the case a decade ago, and it raises serious questions about the publicness of our institutions when the province’s commitment to post-secondary education falls below the 50 percent mark.

Our concern as faculty is that if we continue on a track of making post-secondary education more difficult to access because of underfunding, we put ourselves at more risk of not creating the skills, knowledge and learning opportunities B.C. needs to succeed in an increasingly knowledge-based economy.

Before detailing recommendations for the committee to consider, we want to focus some of our concerns regarding the government’s announced plans to re-engineer post-secondary education.

The first is that the government wants to redirect 25 percent of the provincial operating grant for post-secondary institutions to fund high-demand career programs. Provincial operating grants are already deficient, based on the cost pressures and student enrolments. So changes to the operating grant will have negative impacts.

Then there is the concept of what gets counted in terms of a high-demand career. Engineers, geologists, actuaries, accountants, health care technicians — these would all fall into the category of high-demand careers, but a student can arrive at these credentials from widely different paths.
[ Page 1182 ]

A recent survey of chief executives at Canada’s biggest companies found that the traits their recruiters look for in the people they hire are things like strong communication skills, problem-solving, critical thinking, people and analytical skills — all of which are embedded in a liberal arts education.

If we follow the proposed re-engineering proposal as it has been presented so far, funding for many of the liberal arts programs could be clawed back. The B.C. jobs plan will certainly have an enormous, disruptive and possibly negative impact on post-secondary institutions if it is not modified.

The 2015 provincial budget, then, should address the following priorities: a direct and ongoing commitment of at least $22 million to support provincially funded ESL programs delivered by B.C.’s post-secondary institutions.

Second, a revitalization of the student grant program would help financially stressed students better cope with rising tuition fees and heavier debt loads.

Third, student support services have suffered as a result of underfunding. The 2015 budget needs to provide funding support for those services as part of a broader effort by government to ensure that students are able to complete programs in a more timely way.

Finally, that post-secondary institutions receive the funds they need to better respond to the cost pressures they face. Any proposal that alters already low levels of provincial funding needs to be reconsidered. A more sensible approach, in our view, is to engage in a thorough of the funding formula so that regional inequities and core funding needs for the system as a whole are adequately addressed.

S. Gibson: My understanding is that Kwantlen has somewhat more mature students than the traditional universities. I taught at UFV for many years. A lot of the students coming were mature, so they had more opportunity to pay for their education because they were often mid-career. It seems like the argument is not quite so pressing for those students like myself, who was working when I went back to university. How do you comment on that?

G. Dearle: Well, in brief, I’d say that’s a relatively small number still, at this moment — of course, we’re expecting that to grow — of our students. Of course, students with those kinds of obligations can little afford to carry the cost of higher post-secondary fees, when they’ve got student fees and costs to pay in addition to supporting their families.

S. Gibson: We just had a delegation of a few speakers back from the Confederation of University Faculty Associations. He made the point — I think it was well taken — that people who are university graduates make quite sufficiently higher income, and those with grad degrees make higher income, which kind of also offsets the point of: okay, if somebody has some student debt, they can more quickly pay it off because they’re making a higher income.

That’s not to say…. We don’t want to have a lot of student debt, but certainly, many students have debt, and if they’re making more income, it’s easier for them to pay that back. What is your comment on that?

G. Dearle: Well, the unemployment rate at the moment for young British Columbians is not good, and getting those jobs at that rate right away, at a high-paying salary immediately, is not common. So this debt follows people around for many years. Many young people who accumulate this debt end up carrying it around for ten, 20 years. Even though they might enter the careers they wish, with their family and other obligations it takes a long time to pay off.

G. Heyman: I just want to clarify one of the comments you made about the decline in funding since 2001 being 20 percent. That was in real inflation-adjusted dollars?

My second question is…. Many faculty associations, student societies and colleges have made similar points to yours. I’m wondering if you can expand on one of the points that you’ve made that hasn’t been as common a theme. That’s the role of student support services in ensuring that student completion rates stay up.

B. Davis: The role of student services. What we’re finding is a change in demographic with the actual students that we get. A lot of them are…. We hear from our faculty or counsellors and such and the other supports that what students need today is quite a bit more than in the past. Issues that they’re bringing are affecting their school life and the ability for them to get through their programs, and those services are really needed at Kwantlen. We’re seeing a growth in this, of the need for student services.

M. Morris: Just a couple of things. We’ve heard from various colleges, regional colleges of the province here and post-secondary institutions. Everybody seems to think that their funding model is the bottom of the barrel in comparison to all the other regional colleges. That’s something we need to look into a little bit more.

Also, you talk about student grants. You’re talking about south of the Fraser, and I’m looking at things provincially. We’re looking at things provincially here. We have underutilized post-secondary institutions upcountry, north of the Fraser. Within Prince George. We’ve got colleges in the northwest. We’ve got colleges in the northeast. We’ve got colleges in the interior of the province.

Would you consider…? If we were to look at a student grant program, how about a student grant program that regionally supports these underutilized post-secondary institutions? Or are you talking about one broad program for the entire province?

G. Dearle: Students throughout B.C. need the support in terms of the student grants. One issue is the operating funding that the institution receives, but the second is the student grants program. I think that needs to be addressed throughout the province.

M. Morris: Okay, so you’re already at 103 percent of capacity versus some that might be in the 70 to 80 percent of capacity. If we have student grant programs that were designed to utilize the capacity that we already have in the province, would that be something that you would support?

B. Davis: If I may, I think that the whole provincial context is one thing that has to be looked at. You mention about utilization rates in other colleges and such. As a trades faculty member, I know what’s happening around the province with the other institutions. There is a regional need of a post-secondary institution, and then there’s the whole provincial scope and how it fits within the economy in preparing people for that.

The thing about the grants program is about it being a barrier to access to post-secondary. Mr. Gibson, you mentioned about being able to afford to pay. Often that’s a barrier to get in, and then it’s the debt that’s carried on for many years.

Grants programs — yeah, Kwantlen’s at 102 percent. We used to run lower than that. There’s been a concerted effort to maximize the FTEs that we’re getting. But we’re seeing some issues around the students that we are getting who are making those sacrifices and putting other things on the back burner to be able to go to post-secondary. We know, at the end of the day, if they get through it, they’re going to contribute more to the economy and to the province and to the system.

Would we support an improvement to the grants system provincially? Yes. Here we’re representing Kwantlen in our region. We see what’s happening within our region, where our campuses are located.

D. Ashton (Chair): Gillian and Bob, thank you very much. We’re out of time. I’m sorry.

Okay, I’m just going to recess for a couple of minutes here until Mr. Reed comes.

D. Ashton (Chair): Okay, why don’t we do you, and then he can wait. He’s late. Is that okay?

D. Ashton (Chair): Thanks. Mr. McCormack, we have ten minutes for the presentation. We’re not in recess; we’re live. I’ll give you a two-minute warning if required, and we have five minutes for questions or comments.

D. Ashton (Chair): Get you out of here a little earlier and get you back to work selling cars.

K. McCormack: Selling cars. Well, that’s not exactly what we do, but I’ll explain that in a moment.

Not to be confused with the New Car Dealers Association of B.C., I’m actually with the Automotive Retailers Association, which is the after-market automotive, so everything from collision repair, mechanical repair, automotive glass. We do have licensed motor dealers, which are the used-car dealers, auto recycling, towing
[ Page 1184 ]
and recovery, power sports and automotive rental. Those are the eight sectors. Essentially, sometimes it’s just easier to say we’re everything automotive other than new cars.

I look around the room, and most of you know who I am and have talked with me before. Our association is actually 62 years old. We’ve been around for a long time, even predating our most significant business partner, the Crown insurance company in B.C.

Our members are in virtually every community in this province, certainly all 85 ridings that you and your colleagues represent. They’re mainly independent small business owners. Some of you will have met with some of our members earlier this year, when we had a conscious effort to educate our elected officials on our industry and some of the challenges and issues that we were facing at the time.

I’ll talk a little bit about those. Mostly what I’m here to discuss today is the commitment that our association and our industry are making in support of the B.C. jobs strategy, certainly on the labour education and training and the leadership side when it comes to road safety.

In terms of context, we represent an industry that contributes about $3½ billion to gross domestic product in this province. We employ roughly 45,000 family-supporting jobs throughout the province and, as such, consider ourselves to be a pretty significant contributor to the provincial economy and certainly to all of the communities that our members are present in.

Directly and indirectly — the figures that Meyers Norris Penny, an independent consulting firm, have used to describe the importance of this industry — we employ roughly one in seven British Columbians. So it’s pretty significant. Unfortunately, we’re also amongst the lowest paid when it comes to our members. Despite the contribution, they’re not seeing the returns on their investment that other sectors are seeing.

In terms of the labour side of things, again, Meyers Norris Penny…. They’ve done numerous studies over the years for our industry. They estimate that the turnover in our industry on the labour side should be expected to be around 30 percent in the next three to five years. That’s 10,000 to 15,000 family-supporting jobs — very, very significant. We are challenged with…. As I mentioned previously, some of our trades are amongst the lowest paid of the professional trades in the province. It creates some challenges and difficulties for us to attract individuals into our industry.

We are working very hard as an industry and in partnership with government to do something about that. At a time when we’re expecting to see a significant turnover in our labour, we’re planning in advance of that, doing our best.

When we consider the turnover, it’s also at a time when automotive technology advancements and the requirement for investment in equipment and training is unprecedented. Any of you that have got vehicles, it wasn’t that long ago — ten, 15 years ago — it was much easier to work on a vehicle than it is nowadays. Our members in our industry, it’s not just the car jockeys, car enthusiasts of old. They have to be part scientist, technologist, instrumentation technology expert and a little bit of artist at the same time. It’s a significant contribution they have to make to their futures, their careers, to operate in this industry.

We also argue that our industry is not just for people that are looking for careers. It’s not the jobs of old. These are actual careers, but for those who are entrepreneurial spirited, we’ve got a significant opportunity with the turnover. The average age of owners of businesses in B.C. in the automotive sector is roughly 55. There’s a very strong potential for investment for entrepreneurial-minded individuals in this industry as the years progress as well.

We have been the beneficiaries of funding through the labour market partnership program through the B.C. government, which we’ve been extremely appreciative of. Through that funding we’ve been able to develop a human resource strategy and a marketing and career awareness strategy. We’re in the process right now. We’ve got an application in to the labour market partnership fund for funding for the next step. In partnership with the new car dealers, various colleges — most of the colleges in the province — as well as government, we’re trying to develop a one-stop shop, if you will, for all things automotive career–related.

Yes, it’ll be an opportunity for employers to post jobs and those interested in being employed in the industry to look for jobs, but it’ll be more than that. It will also provide career guidance; mentorship training for apprentices; what individuals entering our industry should expect out of a career in terms of advancement or progression through the skills, through the trades; and also, through the colleges, the opportunities for trades training and advancement in that respect as well.

There’s been a delay or a stall — I’m not entirely sure why — with the labour market partnership program in that funding. In terms of one of our asks, we would ask that that funding be reviewed. It’s critically important for us to get this program up and running, particularly in time for the new year, to meet with our schedule for attracting individuals into our industry.

We’re already seeing a significant demand for qualified trades. And I should point out that it’s not just on the trades side. It’s management, administration, customer service, you name it. We’re seeing a significant demand for individuals in this sector, and we want to get ahead of it, as I mentioned earlier.

In terms of trades training, one of the…. I guess in my generation, perhaps yours also, so many of us never considered a career in anything other than university-related. Many of us went to university, we got our degrees and
[ Page 1185 ]
came out, and we’ve been working ever since. I tell my kids frequently that it’s a strong and viable option to look at a trade nowadays. In fact, where university-trained….

I won’t pick on your previous presenters. But where university-degreed individuals are coming out and seeing unemployment, you’re not going to find that on the trades side of things. The jobs are plentiful. We’ve just got to find ways to attract people into these trades, and they’d have a promising career ahead of them.

One of the criticisms, of course, especially for young people coming in, is they want to keep their options open. We are in partnership with a Lower Mainland university right now on a diploma program, which will be university-transferable. It’s helping our businesses become better business leaders.

We also have a foundation which we are contributing to, to assist with community and charitable giving. We expect CRA approval to come out in the fall. That will also encourage scholarships and awards for trades in our sector as well.

We’ve also made numerous proposals to the government around automotive leadership. As I say, we are the experts in the industry. We’re in a position to make recommendations and properly advise the government when it comes to things like structural and mechanical inspections and road safety issues. We have a vested interest, of course, with the towers and others on the road, but we also take a lot of pride in the fact that we repair vehicles to a standard that protects the public and maintains road safety.

I didn’t come here to criticize, as I mentioned, our most important partner, ICBC. But it’s a fact that to do what we do requires resources, and to maintain the viability of our sector requires reasonable and fair compensation. We’ve come to government over the years many, many times, and we’ll continue to come to government as long as we have to, to get the proper oversight over the corporation, proper review of the corporation’s influence on our sector. Our industry argues that we’ve been subsidizing the corporation and the motoring public for too long, and we would like a review done — independent third party.

G. Heyman: Thank you for your presentation. You mentioned that within the 45,000 jobs, they’re not…. I can’t remember your exact words, but you indicated that the pay rates weren’t particularly high. You also mentioned that there are a lot of jobs and a shortage of people to fill them, which seems to contradict the laws of supply and demand. I’m wondering if you can tell me why you think rates are low.

K. McCormack: Well, the rates are low primarily because our employers can’t afford to pay a competitive rate to attract individuals into automotive trades. The attraction to others, whether it be welders or pipefitters or whatever it is, is significantly strong. I’m not saying that we expect our rates to be at those comparable levels, but we need to get them up to a point where we can effectively compete for those that want a career in automotive.

We do have demand. It’s only going to get significantly higher. Where we do have individuals entering automotive trades training through the colleges, too often they’re dropping out before they complete their training — to go into other sectors because the money is a draw.

Considering that ICBC is responsible for 60 to 70 percent of the value of our industry, if we’re not seeing the rates that our members need to invest in the people and in, as I said, the technology that’s changing, it’s going to be a very significant draw against our ability to move forward and progress.

G. Heyman: Just as a follow-up. You’ve asked for a third-party review of ICBC rates, but as it’s part of what keeps ICBC rates to the shops lower, is that based on the actual average trades rate?

K. McCormack: No, I don’t believe they consider that, necessarily, at all. To be blunt, I believe there are expectations by the government on the returns that they get from ICBC and the revenue. That’s the argument we hear from them. They will not engage with us in a discussion of rates. They claim to have gotten an opinion from the Competition Bureau that suggests they’re not allowed to talk to us about rates. So we become price-takers.

M. Morris: Just further to that, Ken, you say in your presentation here that a large percent of the member businesses are not profitable and that in some cases they haven’t seen rate increases for almost two decades.

M. Morris: I guess one side of me says: “Well, how the heck can a company stay in business for 20 years and not be profitable?” That just doesn’t make any sense. I haven’t seen any numbers from you guys. I wouldn’t mind seeing something, as part of your presentation, to support that kind of statement.

K. McCormack: Absolutely. Specifically with that example, I’m talking about the automotive glass sector. I know that members of cabinet and of the NDP party heard from our members in their communities. They have not had a raise in 18 years. There was a slight increase when we went to a glass express repair program about six to eight years ago, but ICBC off-loaded a lot of administration, requiring our shops to hire individuals.
[ Page 1186 ]
They actually lost money in a lot of respects. Other than that, they haven’t had an increase in 18 years.

G. Holman: I should know this, but is there oversight of ICBC rates right now, and who does that?

K. McCormack: ICBC goes to the Utilities Commission for their broader…. Or however the B.C. Utilities Commission sets those. In terms of the rates themselves, ICBC has pretty much carte blanche to dictate those rates to the industry. As I said, they won’t even engage with us on the cost factors and the challenges that our industry faces that make those rates untenable.

We’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars in investments that our member industries have to make. With the technology changes, it’s growing exponentially at a time when a good shop would be struggling to get a 3 percent margin — very, very difficult.

G. Holman: If you had a little more background on that — on kind of the context, the framework, how the system works — in your review, I think it would be helpful.

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to grab a bite to eat. Up next we have Abbotsford Community Services.

Rod and Nadine, welcome. Thank you very much for coming today. What we have is ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll give you a two-minute warning, and then we have up to five minutes for questions or comments from the committee.

We have a couple of stragglers. They’ll be coming in. People are just trying to tend to their own business right now, which they’ve missed during the day.

Today’s government has big challenges. One might even say an impending crisis. Health care costs are rising at an unsustainable rate. Homelessness is in the newspaper every day. Youth have turned to high-risk behaviours, drugs, gang activity and suicide. Seniors make up 13 percent of the population, without the infrastructure to support that reality. And everyone demands to know what the government is going to do about all this and more.

That’s where we can help. We are Nadine Power, director of operations, and Rod Santiago, executive director, of Abbotsford Community Services. We speak as one amidst hundreds of community social service agencies throughout our province. Those that work in our sector are skilled at delivering essential services in the most cost-effective way. We are focused on meeting clients’ needs and maximizing the benefits of every dollar. We have the ability to leverage government dollars, secure donations and mobilize volunteers.

Last year Abbotsford Community Services raised over $1 million in cash donations and nearly $1.5 million in in-kind donations. Our nearly 1,000 volunteers logged 54,000 hours of service. We utilized the strengths of doctors, lawyers, dentists, educators, administrators, accountants and more. That amounts to over 30 full-time-equivalent positions. One year, one agency — imagine that each community agency in Abbotsford and across the province can tap into those kinds of volunteer resources. Together we are a very strong force.

N. Power: Government has within its grasp the means to prevent this impending crisis by partnering and investing in the community social services sector. We are recognized leaders in innovation and partnerships and have worked hard to ensure that we seize every chance to be more efficient and cost-effective.

Community organizations try new things at the very grass-roots level. We understand the issues at the front line. We can more effectively mobilize resources, partners, volunteers, donations and be innovative. Government can’t turn the ship around without a great deal of effort, but community service agencies can and do.

When Minister Mike de Jong said that by 2016-17 health care costs would reach $19.6 billion, or 42 percent, of the government expenses, it was a signal that we need to find new and innovative ways of delivering service. He goes on to say: “I am probably more interested in the shifts that can take place within the budget around preventative health care.”

So consider this. Resources for youth are often tied up in expensive crisis work. Evidence shows that by providing supports and resources now, we can prevent paying much more later in terms of correction facilities, youth detention, gang involvement, homelessness and addiction issues. At-risk children are 25 percent more likely to drop out of school, 40 percent more likely to become a teen parent, 50 percent more likely to be placed in special education, 60 percent more likely to never attend college and 70 percent more likely to be arrested for a violent crime.

The National Crime Prevention Council of Canada advocates that the most effective way to prevent crime
[ Page 1187 ]
is to ensure healthier children, stronger families, better schools and more cohesive communities.

The Abbotsford Youth Health Centre recently won the B.C. Premier’s Innovation and Excellence Award for the region. It is a partnership of MCFD, IMPACT youth services, Abbotsford Division of Family Practice Society and Abbotsford Community Services. The Abbotsford Youth Health Centre is a place where youth, some of whom have never seen a doctor before, can have instant access to a wide range of medical assistance and can develop a lifelong habit of protecting and enhancing all aspects of their health.

If they go to an emergency room, they will be provided with acute care, and then they’re out the door without long-term management of their health issues, such as diabetes or high-risk behaviours. But at the Youth Health Centre, not only do they receive health care; they’re assisted to recognize and address high-risk behaviours and referred to other support services. They return to manage their issues, and they refer their friends. This is innovative, cost-effective, and it makes the most of partnerships.

R. Santiago: Homelessness is expensive, as we cycle people through expensive emergency and public systems. In 2007 the Sheldon Chumir foundation estimated that the emergency response to homelessness costs taxpayers from $4.5 billion to $6 billion annually. This figure includes not only the cost of emergency shelters but social services, health care and corrections.

By shifting the focus to permanent solutions, we have the opportunity to reduce the long-term cost of homelessness and make more efficient and effective use of public resources.

A 2001 study of the B.C. Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services noted that it costs the B.C. government 33 percent more to provide health care, criminal justice and social services to a homeless person than to a socially-housed unemployed individual. It costs $60 to $80 per day to house someone in an emergency shelter but less than $35 a day in supportive housing. It is worth noting that individuals living in supported housing, as opposed to staying in shelters, stand a better chance of labour market preparation.

We need to look beyond homelessness and prevent people from becoming homeless. Those at risk are the working poor, the single-parent families, seniors and youth aging out of care. At the ACS food bank we not only provide food hampers and Christmas gifts, but we also partner with community to offer a free dental clinic, a backpack with weekend food for school-age children and a mentoring program.

N. Power: The percentage of seniors is growing at an alarming rate, and with it will come the challenge of meeting health care and housing needs. In Abbotsford it is expected that by 2031 the percentage of seniors will rise to 19.5 percent of the population.

In their 2014 publication on best practices in home care for seniors the Ministry of Health and the Michael Smith Foundation examine international strategies on the challenge of providing sustainable home care.

The report highlights the goal of seniors retaining their independence for as long as possible yet recognizes that as the population ages and more people require services, cost-containment strategies are also needed. The government’s investment in the Better at Home program to support seniors by providing simple services — yardwork, housekeeping and friendly visiting — is successful, but it will require additional investment if it’s to achieve its goal of keeping seniors out of long-term-care facilities.

Last year ACS helped more than 3,300 seniors with housing, CPP, disability forms, income tax, advocacy and medical transportation. Over 7,500 meals were delivered to homes. This is accomplished with just three staff, who are supported by nearly 150 volunteers.

R. Santiago: How can finite resources make a fundamental difference in the lives of today’s children and families? By investing in community social services. Further, by endorsing a concerted provincial social policy framework that will set key policy directions, values, priorities, rules and expectations, which guide the creation of public policy to meet our social needs now and into the future.

We urge the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services to make the tough but right choice to increase funding to adequate levels for the community social service sector. Investing in the well-being of individuals and families now results in savings in hospitals, police, court systems, unemployment lines, detox and morgues down the road.

The truth is that over 70 percent of B.C.’s population will touch or rely on community social services at some point in their lives. Every year the sector works directly with over 320,000 people, helping them deal with life’s tough problems — daughters, cousins, co-workers, friends and parents. Community social services saves money and lives, and gives us the kind of British Columbia we all want to live in and leave behind for our children.

M. Morris: Just one comment. “The truth is that over 70 percent of B.C.’s population will touch or rely on community social services.” Having worked with all kinds of people with social issues over the years, it’s a pretty broad statement.
[ Page 1188 ]

I know that there are a lot of people that will rely on social services over the years, but where does the 70 percent figure come from? Can you give me some reference material for that so I can have a better, in-depth look at that?

N. Power: That’s from the Federation of Community Social Services. It’s a statistic that they’ve given us. They are the provincial body of all community social services.

N. Power: It would take into account all the types of services that community social services provide. So it may be drop-ins for family, support services for parents. It’s not just those in desperate need.

I don’t see a very specific ask, so to speak, to the committee. With that said, though, my understanding is that you’re advocating in general for the community services sector. But seeing the range of all the services and programs that are in this brochure, is there a specific area that you find that there’s an increased pressure or need for that we should pay attention to, whether it’s legal aids or language, literacy?

R. Santiago: In terms of specifics, one of the pieces that I would encourage is a social policy framework. It’s an area that we would encourage. We alluded to it in the ask. There is a need for our province to have a concerted approach — not just for one ministry to have one way to do things, another ministry to have one way to do things, but for our whole province and all of us to be marching to the same tune. And that would be for a social policy framework similar to what other provinces, like Alberta, have.

N. Power: If I could add to that, senior services are sorely underfunded. One of the things we’re trying to stress here is partnerships. When we showcase the Abbotsford Youth Health Centre, it is a partnership with the Ministry of Children and Families and a number of social service agencies. Hugely successful. Much cheaper than providing acute care in hospitals. So more of those types of partnerships, because we can leverage our dollars.

How are you defining social services? I mean, if you’re talking seven out of every ten people, you’re talking about a dozen people in this room right now that will touch social services at some time or another. Are you talking about medical services? Are you talking about…? That’s just a staggering number. I’ve been in the business a long time, and I really have trouble with that.

R. Santiago: I’ll just speak to our agency in itself. Abbotsford Community Services is just one agency. Our doors are open to 40,000 individuals in just one year.

R. Santiago: Separate individuals. We have 140,000 people in Abbotsford. So 40,000 — that’s almost one in four people just in Abbotsford, and that’s just one agency.

That speaks just to one agency in one community. When you look at the Federation of Community Social Services, which encompasses all the agencies across B.C., that’s where that number comes from. It’s all the agencies collated for the province.

E. Foster: Just get it in by the 17th, if you could. Or I’ll leave you a card. You could send it to me personally. I really need to see that.

D. Ashton (Chair): It’d be better if you could get it in to us for the 17th and we can all see it.

G. Holman: Thanks for your presentation. I would echo that any background documentation you could provide helps your case. I guess I would argue, in response to some of the other comments, that if it wasn’t 70 percent but 30 percent, it still would be a serious social issue, and there are serious social costs associated with it.

Another example is the at-risk children — the percentages that you’re using here. I believe there is research that shows that strongly, but it would just be good to cite that.

D. Ashton (Chair): That’s what I thought. Thank you very much for coming today. It’s great.

If you do have a minute, by the 17th, we’d sure appreciate that information.
[ Page 1189 ]

D. Ashton (Chair): Boy, it’s come quick, hasn’t it? The middle of the month. Holy….

D. Ashton (Chair): Okay, thank you for coming. We’ve allotted ten minutes for the presentation — I’ll give you a two-minute warning if required — and up to five minutes for questions or comments. Please go ahead.

My name is Mariane Bourcheix-Laporte, and I’m presenting today on behalf of the Pacific Association of Artist Run Centres. PAARC is short for it. That’s the acronym I’ll be using in my presentation. I’m presenting today on behalf of our 32 member organizations, which are located in Vancouver, Victoria, Nelson, Kelowna and Kamloops.

The Pacific Association of Artist Run Centres represents artist-run centres in British Columbia. Artist-run centres are non-profit organizations working in the field of visual and media arts, which present non-commercial and experimental artwork. They are geared towards the benefit of the practising artist. Artist-run centres support artists at all stages of their careers, pay professional artist fees and employ cultural workers and administrators.

Since the early 1970s artist-run centres in Canada have formed regional, national and international networks, and the majority of Canada’s internationally recognized visual and media artists began their careers in artist-run centres.

Artist-run centres are vital to the artistic community, and they provide essential services to members of their community. These services are fostered through peer-to-peer engagement, including socioprofessional networking opportunities and access to artistic distribution and production resources and support.

Artist-run centres constitute key components of the Canadian visual arts system, as they provide community-engaged programs and activities, support the development of artists’ and cultural workers’ careers and foster artistic innovation.

Today we have some of the oldest artist-run centres in Canada that are still in operation in B.C. Some of our members have recently celebrated their 40th anniversary.

B.C. artist-run centres are thriving, but they are underfunded. The B.C. artist-run community is one of the most active and most recognized in Canada. To demonstrate this, the Canada Council for the Arts has recently recognized the quality of activities of B.C. artist-run centres.

In the last year the Canada Council for the Arts restructured its support to the artist-run centres program, with the impact that many centres across the country saw their funding cut and allocated to other centres. B.C. is the only province that did not see any of its centres receive funding cuts. All the centres that received operating funds through this program of the Canada Council saw their funding maintained or increased. In addition, only one new centre across the country came into this program and received operating funds from the council. This is the Vancouver-based artist-run centre 221A.

In recent years artist-run centres have been increasing their activities and reach. Data pooled from CADAC, Canadian Arts Data/Données sur les arts au Canada, a national database used by arts organizations and funding bodies, demonstrates that in the last six years B.C. artist-run centres have increased the number of artists that they work with by 8 percent, the number of public activities that they organize by 18.5 percent and attendance at public activities that they organize by 53 percent.

This demonstrates that artist-run centres are thriving, but they need increased support from the provincial government to continue developing innovative programs, supporting artists and engaging communities. Artist-run centres in B.C. are underfunded in comparison to their Canadian counterparts. In the last six years median provincial funding attributed to B.C. artist-run centres was, on average, $21,000 under the Canadian median. Less than half of the organizations in PAARC’s membership received operating funds from the B.C. Arts Council last year.

We believe that the arts are aligned with B.C. government priorities. PAARC believes that increased funding to the arts is aligned with economic priorities that have been identified by the current government, notably the creation of sustainable jobs and investment in sectors that actively participate in the knowledge economy.

British Columbia is the Canadian province with the highest number of working artists. They comprise 1.8 percent of the province’s total labour force. The city of Vancouver is the Canadian metropolis with the highest percentage of artists, which comprise 2.3 percent of its labour force. B.C. is also second in rank amongst the provinces, with 3.65 percent of its labour force being comprised of cultural workers. Together, artists and cultural workers account for 5.45 percent of the province’s labour force.

Increased funding to the B.C. Arts Council’s core budget and to the community gaming grants to organizations is the only way to ensure the health and continued growth of the cultural sector. The lack of adequate provincial funding to the cultural sector creates a climate of precarity, which puts additional strain on the daily operations of non-profit arts organizations like artist-run centres. Emerging artists and organizations, particularly, struggle to sustain their activities, and the lack of ac-
[ Page 1190 ]
cess to adequate support takes the wind out of the sails of those who are actively shaping the future of British Columbia’s cultural sector.

In the past year the B.C. government has demonstrated its commitment to making art and culture accessible to the next generation of British Columbians and to ensuring quality higher education arts training. The development of youth-oriented and early career development programs offered through the B.C. Arts Council, combined with significant investments in the new Emily Carr University campus, testifies to this. We salute these initiatives, as they directly support the development of emerging arts practitioners in the province.

However, we denounce the fact that these initiatives, which are aligned with the B.C. Creative Futures strategy, do not primarily focus on fostering the development of the next generation of British Columbian artists and cultural producers. As outlined in the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development’s most recent service plan, these measures aim to “develop the next generation of skilled workers who will be creative, collaborative and innovative thinkers.” And this in accordance with the B.C. jobs plan.

Effectively, the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development’s service plan draws a direct connection between the creative B.C. strategy and the success of the B.C. jobs plan. But the B.C. jobs plan does not identify the cultural sector and the creative industries as key industry sectors.

In this context, we fear that the value of quality artistic education and its potential impact on the development of the cultural sector are sidelined by the current government strategy to capitalize on artistic skills and creative intelligence to fuel the growth of non-creative industry sectors. Without concrete support provided for the development of professional opportunities in the cultural sector, it is difficult to conceive that newly created youth-oriented programs were “produced to help prepare youth for rewarding careers in the creative industries.”

We fear that if no incentive measures are set in place to retain the next generation of trained artists and cultural workers in the province, British Columbia will lose its young artistic labour force and, with it, potential to benefit from a growing creative economy.

We urge the government to start planning ahead and increase subsidies to the cultural sector in response to the expansion of a trained artistic and cultural workforce — measures that the B.C. Creative Futures initiative would foster.

We urge you to set in place measures that will incite artists to continue producing and presenting work in the province. Artists are essential to the vitality of the province’s cultural sector but suffer from economic precarity. The average earnings of working artists are 37 percent below the Canadian labour force average. Forty-eight percent of artists in Vancouver have higher education degrees, but their median yearly incomes are evaluated at $12,900.

We urge you to invest in arts and culture and bring the province’s per-capita public funding to the arts, at a minimum, to the national average and to follow the recommendations made last year by the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services to “provide additional funding to the B.C. Arts Council and for organizations eligible for community gaming grants when finances permit.”

With a forecasted surplus of $184 million for the 2014-2015 fiscal year, we believe that increasing subsidies to non-profit arts organizations and artists is well within reach.

Our recommendations are the following, and they are aligned with the recommendations that have been made here by the Professional Arts Alliance of Greater Victoria and, in writing, will be made by the B.C. members of the Pacific IMAA.

First recommendation: to increase the budget of the B.C. Arts Council to $32 million, with a plan to increase the council’s legislated appropriated investment to $40 million over the following two-year period.

Second recommendation: that the community gaming grants to organizations be increased to $156 million for 2014-15, with a goal of increasing gaming grants steadily in the long term.

Third recommendation: to provide stable, predictable funding for the arts sector. The B.C. Arts Council and community gaming grants program should offer multi-year funding, with three-year grants to arts and culture organizations.

The fourth recommendation is that the government should develop a capital program to help arts organizations purchase and maintain presentation venues for arts and culture.

We’ll be submitting a written documentation of this brief. Thank you very much for your time.

S. Gibson: Thank you for your presentation. Always an important dimension of a healthy society.

A couple of questions. My understanding is that most artists do it part-time. They have a regular job, and then they have an artistic interest. So they’re painting or sculpting or perhaps even writing a book or something, but they have a major income. Is my understanding correct? You mentioned 2.8 percent of Vancouver are artists, but they may also be working for somebody else as well, so they’re not strictly self-employed. Is that right?

M. Bourcheix-Laporte: Well, the definition of a professional artist, the definition that is applied by both the Canada Council for the Arts and the B.C. Arts Council,
[ Page 1191 ]
is someone that dedicates the majority of their time to their artistic practice. So this would be the equivalent of a full-time job, probably supplemented by part-time work in another sector.

S. Gibson: I guess that’s a paradigm, I think, that I want to maybe look at. People…. They’ll do something. Somebody’s a writer. So they’ll be working at a job, and then they’ll slowly move into that as the income picks up. But with limited resources, it’s a challenge to….

M. Bourcheix-Laporte: It’s definitely a challenge, absolutely. Very little artists can afford to not have another job. They’re lucky if they find a job that is in parallel in the sector. But yes, absolutely. And that takes away time for creative production.

Does this also include people who are working for somebody else — artists for advertising agencies, book publishers, those kinds of people?

M. Bourcheix-Laporte: Yeah, artists — again, following the professional definition of an artist. So that would be following some of the categories that are funded by council.

D. Ashton (Chair): So October 17. You said you’re putting a submission in. We need it by then.

D. Ashton (Chair): Welcome, folks. Thank you very much for coming today. We have ten minutes allotted for the presentation and five minutes for questions. I’ll give you a two-minute warning as we go through the process if it looks like you’re going to broach into the ten, so everybody has a heads-up. Please go ahead.

J. Willow: Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of Canada’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, also known as Rx&D.

My name is John Willow. I’m the regional director for Rx&D here in British Columbia. With me here today is Jo-Ann Stuart Chatterley. She’s vice-chair of our B.C. committee and also works for Janssen Inc. as their manager of government affairs and health policy.

We are both based here in British Columbia, and we’re part of a larger contingent of our industry members as well as a larger community of the life science sector who all share a passion to improve human health and to contribute to solutions to help ensure that our health system is more sustainable today and for future generations.

Rx&D represents 55 research-based or brand-name pharmaceutical companies who discover, develop and deliver innovative medicines and vaccines to Canadians. Our members’ activities are guided by a clear code of ethical practices. Acceptance of and adherence to that code, both in letter and in spirit, is a mandatory condition of membership in Rx&D.

By way of background, we contribute $3 billion annually to the Canadian economy, and our members invest over $1 billion each year into Canada. Approximately 75 percent of this investment is directed to over 3,000 clinical trials across this country. We directly employ over 15,000 Canadians and account for a total value chain employment of 46,000 high-value, high-paying jobs.

J. Stuart Chatterley: Locally, in British Columbia, Rx&D members employ about 600 people, account for almost 3,000 indirect jobs and invest in some 700 clinical trials, the third-leading jurisdiction in Canada.

Clinical trials are a critical part of a complex process to bring safe, innovative and effective medicines, vaccines and devices to market. They enable our clinicians to have access to state-of-the-art technologies and push the frontiers of medical knowledge. Most importantly, these trials provide hope to patients and their families who have failed on or do not respond to conventional therapy.

In the last decade our members have invested over $1 billion to support research-and-development initiatives with our partners such as the B.C. Cancer Agency, the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, B.C.’s Centre for Drug Research and Development, the personalized medicine initiative at UBC and St. Paul’s Hospital, and numerous others. Maintaining and growing these partnerships is critical to continue to diversify and strengthen the B.C. economy.

While we are proud of this level of investment, especially during tough economic times, our future ability to continue to contribute to the province’s medical research and life science sector will be a function of B.C.’s willingness to embrace and foster life sciences innovation.
[ Page 1192 ]
This will require integrated and complementary policies across the whole of government.

Getting this environment right is critical for our industry, the broader life sciences ecosystem, sustaining our health system and, most importantly, our families, friends and neighbours who look to our sector to create safe and effective medicines and vaccines so that we can all live healthier and longer lives.

We acknowledge the fiscal pressures which the government is facing, and we are supportive of strategies which keep the provincial budget in balance and in surplus.

The current service plan for the Ministry of Health projects departmental spending for fiscal 2014-15 at $16.9 billion. Of this total, just over $1.07 billion is allocated to PharmaCare. This amount includes everything to run the provincial drug program: the reimbursement costs for innovative medicines, generic drugs, diabetic test strips, some over-the-counter medicines and supplies; pharmacist dispensing fees; distribution costs; and the costs of actually running the ministry’s pharmaceutical services division and its various initiatives. This represents just 6 percent of the province’s total health care bill, and the brand medicine contribution in terms of taxpayer costs is 3.6 percent.

If you only take away one message today, it is this: British Columbians are getting great value and impact in terms of human health for this 3.6 percent spend.

Over the past five years data derived from B.C. budget documents and the public accounts show that the cumulative annual growth rate for pharmaceuticals has been well below the average growth rate of the total Health budget. In effect, B.C., like every other province, has already bent this cost curve.

PharmaCare is cutting $100 million, or 8.5 percent of its budget this year. We find the policy approaches being used to achieve these savings, such as reference-based pricing and delisting of needed medications, are shortsighted. By contrast, the appropriate use of and adherence to prescription medications and vaccines is actually an enabler of, as opposed to a barrier to, health system sustainability.

Alongside optimal use and patient-adherence programs, the proper diagnosis of ailments, appropriate prescribing and dispensing of medicines can drive cost efficiencies and effective reallocation of resources. These include reducing the need for physician and clinic visits, eliminating hospital visits or decreasing the length of stay in hospitals and reducing the incidents of more costly and invasive surgical procedures. We encourage this committee to recommend a greater focus by the Ministry of Health, with appropriate resourcing, on appropriate use and patient-adherence programs.

As our population ages, more and more of us, despite healthy lifestyle choices, will be diagnosed with a chronic condition. Non-adherence to medications, especially in the domain of chronic diseases such as COPD, diabetes and cardiovascular conditions, is arguably the most substantive area where we can actually better manage pharmaceutical budgets over the span of a generation to truly maximize the value for our public spend and drive better long-term health outcomes.

The second issue we wish to raise today is very specific but is symptomatic of the cost containment focus which is driving pharmaceutical policy in B.C. right now, seemingly without due regard to patient outcomes or unforeseen impact on our health system or across the broader economy.

On August 5 the Ministry of Health enacted a policy that will lead to the removal of PharmaCare coverage for thousands of stabilized patients in a class of medications known as dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, or DPP-4s, used to treat British Columbians with type 2 diabetes.

J. Willow: As a trade association, Rx&D takes no position on the efficacy of individual medicines. However, Rx&D is strongly opposed to this sort of policy, which is basically budget-driven therapeutic substitution.

In human terms, this recent policy change will impact between 8,000 and 10,000 British Columbians who are already stabilized on their current diabetes therapies or medication. By next February they will be forced to switch to a non–chemically equivalent drug.

It will also result in a future cost to the health care system, such as unnecessary physician visits, hospitalizations and administrative costs. We are very concerned that these costs have not been budgeted for by officials in the Ministry of Health.

Budget decisions that embrace this type of therapeutic substitution erode the foundation of the prescriber-patient relationship that lies as the foundation and the heart of effective primary care. In addition, this policy, and similar actions that the Ministry is planning in other therapeutic areas, does not consider B.C.’s past and poor experience with cost-driven therapeutic substitution.

Medication class reviews that lead to reimbursement changes should follow evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines and have as their primary objective the improvement of patient outcomes and care.

This DPP-4 coverage change, and the non-transparent tendering process from which it arose, runs contrary to the key recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Task Force report in 2008 that was commissioned and accepted by this government. At the back of our submission you’ll find a listing of those 12 recommendations.

As part of the efforts to reduce the health care expenditures and manage sustainability of drug plans, provincial and territorial governments are implementing various policy approaches aimed at delivering greater value for their investment on pharmaceuticals.

There are other policy mechanisms available to B.C. PharmaCare to allow expanded access to innovative
[ Page 1193 ]
pharmaceuticals while at the same time supporting the appropriate use of therapies, delivering full value on this pharmaceutical spend.

D. Ashton (Chair): Okay. Just in case there are any questions, because I have to cut you off at 15. I apologize for interrupting.

These options include special authorization, independent patient consideration, the reduction of generic pricing, appropriate drug utilization and adherence programs, and product listing agreements.

To get to the recommendations. We would ask this committee to recommend that the recommendation from the Pharmaceutical Task Force be used as a lens by the ministry officials in the Ministry of Health as they implement their service plan so as to ensure that the pursuit of short-term budget targets does not compromise its more fundamental objective of care for, and improving the health of, all British Columbians.

We want to continue to work with health care professionals and private sector players and patients in authentic and collaborative partnerships to ensure that health decisions support the right diagnosis that leads to the right treatment decision. If those treatment protocols include pharmacotherapy, then the right medicine in the right dose gets to the right patient at the right time.

B.C. is not alone in trying to find the appropriate balance between managing its spend on expenditures in health care and at the same time creating a healthy environment that encourages a positive investment climate and diversified economy.

This challenge is one that is common for all state-funded and state-governed health care programs worldwide. Rx&D members have solid experience in other jurisdictions, both here in Canada and elsewhere, in trying to find solutions to address this balancing challenge.

To this end, we conclude our formal remarks by recommending the creation of a multiministry, multi-stakeholder working group being put in place with representatives of Rx&D, the Ministries of Advanced Education, Technology and Innovation, Health and Finance, as well as members of the life sciences community and, of course, patient groups.

For those who’ve reviewed our previous testimonies, you’ll know that this is something we’ve asked for in the last three years. This model will enable collaborative efforts for us to be able to maximize our ability to address the challenges and find solutions to health care sustainability.

Again, we’d be happy to elaborate further in questions on this, but when it comes to tackling the tough issues in health care sustainability, we want to be at the table, not just because we’re a concerned stakeholder about the future of British Columbia but because we believe that we have knowledge, experience and potential solutions that we can bring to the table to help with these common challenges that we have.

D. Ashton (Chair): John and Jo-Ann, thank you. There’s only a minute left for questions. I’m sorry.

G. Heyman: Very quickly, if you’re aware of any studies that indicate the primary causes for the failure of drug adherence, if you could forward them to the committee by the 17th, that would be useful and form part of the record. If you have any recommendations for government policies that could improve drug adherence outcomes, that would be useful, either now or in writing.

D. Ashton (Chair): If you have any additional information — because I know that you had to rush through this, although we’re able to read through — would you please get it in to us? We will take any additional information up till the 17th.

I do apologize. We’re out of time. Sorry about that, but thank you very much for coming.

D. Ashton (Chair): Up next we have the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union, and I have a list change. Stephanie and Megan and Simon — is that correct? We had Brian to start.

Thank you very much for coming today. Greatly appreciated. We have ten minutes for the presentation — I’ll give you a two-minute warning — and there are five minutes for questions or comments from the board.

S. Smith: Good afternoon, and thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to the committee. The B.C. Government and Service Employees Union represents more than 67,000 women and men who live in communities all across our province. Our members have a deep understanding of how our province works, government and government agencies and how ministries work.

Our submission builds on the expertise and day-to-day experience of our members and will focus on four areas: spending on social programs, rebuilding the public
[ Page 1194 ]
service by focusing on front-line workers, ensuring credible public oversight in the resource sector and additional revenue options. B.C. is facing increasing demand on many public services because of demographic changes and ongoing economic uncertainty. Our public services are under-resourced and underfunded and have been for many years.

I’d like to focus this afternoon particularly on the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Persistent underfunding in MCFD has deeply impacted the delivery of essential services to children and youth at risk. Since 2008 MCFD’s annual funding has been reduced in absolute terms. Members tell us of growing and unmanageable workloads, chronic understaffing and unfilled vacancies.

As a start, I would urge the government to immediately restore $37 million cut from the ministry’s budget since 2008 and fill the current vacancies. But we know that the MCFD requires additional funds beyond that, and we believe an additional $200 million should be added over the next three years to provide much-needed funding for core services. This will restore the MCFD funding, as a percentage of total government spending, to the level it was at in 2008.

Beyond MCFD, I will ask that the committee seriously consider investments in other important public services. For example, a public investment in quality affordable child care results in both short- and long-term net benefits. As an early childhood educator myself, I know the long-term value of quality child care. This is an investment in our young people so that they can continue to grow, learn, and become productive members of our society and to grow our economy.

Also, a public investment in home and community health care could achieve significant savings in health care costs. Home support helps people stay healthier and remain in their homes longer, which saves cost for our health care system.

Since 2001 home support services have been restricted and contracted out, resulting in declining wages and working conditions for community health workers. Service levels have also declined. Investing in community health will improve health outcomes and save money going forward.

Our provincial parks system is a valuable asset that generates hundreds of millions in economic activity every year, but a decade of cuts has resulted in decaying infrastructure, insufficient staff and increased risk of wildfires. The result has been an overall decline in visitors of more than 25 percent since 1999. Reinvesting in our parks will increase tourism and support local economies across B.C.

These are just four examples of public services we believe need to be rebuilt. The others are in our full submission for your review.

In terms of additional revenue options, it wouldn’t be responsible for me to come today asking for increased funding for public services if I didn’t also present ideas for new or increased provincial revenue.

There are many options to generate more revenue and make our tax system more fair. For example, the top tax bracket on high-income earners was increased temporarily. Let’s make it permanent. Returning the corporate income tax rate to the 2002 rate would generate $700 million a year. The BCGEU recommends that the government review all income taxes with the aim of improving fairness and increasing revenue.

I’d also like to touch briefly on the revenue that comes from our publicly owned natural resources. B.C.’s natural gas royalties are currently amongst the lowest in Canada, and the proposed LNG tax is likely to be dropped as well. The province provides large subsidies for water use and road construction, and natural gas producers are exempt from the carbon tax on their process emissions.

We’re providing unnecessary financial support to very profitable industries. Their activities entail significant environmental impacts and risks, as we were unfortunately reminded of this summer at Mount Polley. We are steadfast in a recommendation that we have made to government in the past: end subsidies and royalty breaks to the oil and gas industry and direct 25 percent of all oil and gas revenue into a B.C. heritage fund.

On forestry. For more than three decades the stumpage rate has been frozen at 25 cents per cubic metre of wood. Increasing it to $1 per cubic metre would bring in about $12 million. We need to increase monitoring and enforcement in our forests. That, too, could lead to increased revenue.

We also believe we should expand the responsibilities of B.C.’s deputy sheriffs. Duties such as traffic and warrant delivery would save money, increase revenues and keep our roads safer. Deploying B.C.’s deputy sheriffs in the way in which Alberta has utilized them could generate up to $25 million in new revenue.

We believe we need to continue to modernize and expand our provincial Liquor Distribution Branch: open a few more stores in areas where there is demand, open stores on Sunday, expand the hours that stores are open and offer refrigerated products. The government is exploring models for grocery store liquor sales, and we strongly recommend that any store-within-a-store model use our experienced LDB employees.

In conclusion, these are practical strategies. If they were implemented, I strongly believe that they could help ensure a strong, sustainable economy and help fund our quality public services. There are a number of other ideas and recommendations in our submission, and I hope you will give them their full consideration.

E. Foster: That’s the minimum stumpage rate for salvage. Stumpage rates are set by the B.C. Timber Sales averages. And the only stumpage that goes out at 25 cents is category 5 and 6 wood, which either goes for pulp or…. Ma’am, I have bid on more timber sales in my life…. Even when we were logging mountain pine beetle, we didn’t get it for 25 cents.

To say that the stumpage rate is 25 cents is misleading this committee. I’m sorry, but that’s just strictly misleading. The minimum stumpage rate for salvaged wood that’s not going to make sawlogs is 25 cents.

In our submission it explains that that’s what we were referring to, in terms of the recommendation. And it is true that in 2013-2014…. I just received some data from the timber pricing branch, and 30 percent of the volume that was logged in B.C. last year was billed at the minimum stumpage rate. The stumpage rate may originally be higher, and then because of all of the adjustments through the appraisal system, then it ends up being billed at the minimum rate. That was the most recent volume. It was 30 percent at that rate.

E. Foster: I know all about that. I was an appraising forester, so I know exactly what all…. The small volumes, the road construction, the reforestation. But to come out and say that stumpage is 25 cents — we wouldn’t be able to ship a stick of lumber to the United States.

M. Scott: No, I think we’re clear that not all timber is billed at the minimum rate, for sure. The average rate for the remainder of the volume was, I think, almost $13 last year per cubic metre of wood. But in terms of volume, yes, 30 percent last year was billed at that 25-cent rate.

E. Foster: Do you know how many timber sales weren’t sold last year because the upset stumpage was too high and nobody would bid on them?

G. Heyman: Thank you very much for your presentation. You have made some suggestions for revenue increase, but you’ve also referred to some programs for which I know there are some studies indicating that there’s actually a return on investment — for instance, lower acute care emergency room treatment when there are higher rates of home support for frail seniors. There are studies by boards of trade, banks and others that talk about the return on investment in child care.

I quickly scanned your footnotes. I may have missed something. It’s a quick 15 minutes. If you have, by the deadline of October 17, any additional studies in those areas that you’d like to forward us so that they’ll form a part of the committee’s actual record, that would be extremely useful.

M. Morris: I just wanted to comment. You’re asking for quite a bit in this, in an overall increase to the public sector. Yet we haven’t seen B.C.’s economy…. You noted that in your presentation. B.C.’s economy hasn’t picked up to the extent that it should yet. We’re waiting for commodity prices to go up.

Is there any other source? Where’s all this revenue going to come from to increase the service levels that you have requested in your presentation here? We won’t be getting it from the resource sector yet — until LNG comes on board, perhaps. Do you have another source of income that we would be looking at to provide for this?

S. Smith: Well, it is one of the recommendations or requests that government look at all taxes, in terms of income taxes, and have a look at a fair and equitable distribution of those, plus the revenue increases that we’ve suggested through some of our recommendations.

M. Scott: If you total it up, the suggestions that we’ve made as options for consideration in this submission, it adds up to, I think, just over $4 billion of potential revenue. I think we’ve made a pretty substantive case for where you might consider generating more revenue.

G. Holman: Thanks very much for your presentation and the attention you’ve paid to detail and the sourcing that you’ve provided. I certainly heard, when you were talking about stumpage, that you were talking about minimum rates, not averages. That’s what I heard.

In terms of the question about where the $4 billion comes from, you’ve outlined a number of alternatives that may or may not be acceptable, but you certainly listed them, and you’ve listed your sources. Thank you for that.

The material that you were reading from — I was try-
[ Page 1196 ]
ing to pick it up within this document. Is it a separate kind of summary of recommendations?

G. Holman: Can you provide that to the committee as well? It was providing a succinct summary that I was kind of looking for and finding occasionally. It would be useful to provide that as well.

D. Ashton (Chair): Any other questions or comments? Well, thanks, ladies — and Simon. A very well-put-together and thoughtful presentation. There are some things that we can agree and disagree on, but what we’re after is suggestions, and you brought suggestions, so thank you. Many come without that and just come with demands.

D. Ashton (Chair): Hi, Sharon. Thank you very much for coming. We’ve allotted ten minutes for the presentation and five minutes for questions and comments from the panel. I’ll give you a two-minute warning if required. Please start. It’s up to you.

S. Gregson: It’s a pleasure to be here. Thank you very much. I certainly know it takes a lot of energy to travel around the province and go to all the different sites. I’m sure you’re getting lots of good information. I’m happy to share with you some comments from the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of British Columbia.

Our position hasn’t changed very much over the years. We appreciate that you’ll be receptive this year, giving the changing context for child care. Whether your government chooses to focus on resource sector development, a green economy or skills development, a prosperous British Columbia requires strong labour force participation, and parents of young children need access to affordable, quality child care if they are to be part of that prosperity.

You have before you a green booklet, the fifth edition of the $10-a-day plan, which was released just a couple of weeks ago. In there you’ll also see a copy of my remarks, as well as a list — a very impressive list, I think — of the organizations that are supporting the $10-a-day plan. Just for you to note, that list represents almost two million British Columbians now. You’ll also see a very recent and informative article from the Vancouver Sun editorial committee supporting investment in child care for economic and workforce reasons. I hope that will be good bedtime reading for you.

In 2013 the report from this same committee acknowledged the concerns that we and many others have brought forward for decades, calling on the provincial government to look at ways to provide more affordable and accessible, quality child care. That was your recommendation 57 last year.

However, to date the provincial government has not responded in a meaningful way to the child care crisis. B.C. remains one of the weakest provinces in the country. Canada, sadly, is the weakest of the industrialized countries when it comes to access to child care.

The B.C. child care crisis continues despite widespread support for the solution outlined in our Community Plan for a Public System of Integrated Early Care and Learning. That’s actually the long name, the real name, of the $10-a-day plan, developed by us, the Coalition of Child Care Advocates, and our colleagues the Early Childhood Educators of B.C. It is now supported by municipalities and organizations, as I said, representing almost two million British Columbians.

The only remaining obstacle, it seems, to moving forward on this plan is its price tag. We just can’t afford it, according to the provincial government. This response, you need to know, is completely inconsistent with the large body of evidence pointing to the economic benefits of public investment in quality, affordable child care.

Moreover, we have always acknowledged that leadership and funding from the federal government is important. We work with colleagues across the country to promote substantial federal investment in child care systems developed by individual provinces and territories and First Nations communities.

Today we’re pleased to share that the federal NDP has announced a collaborative approach to funding affordable child care across Canada. You may have seen the announcement this morning getting a lot of press. Their proposed federal funding would make it possible for parents to pay no more than $15 a day, and the federal funding associated with this announcement would support British Columbia in achieving our provincial affordability goal of $10 a day.

So I’m here today to tell you that the $10-a-day plan is inevitable in this province — if not now, it will be later. It’s just a matter of when and by whom.

Support for the $10-a-day child care plan is unprecedented in terms of any new program that British
[ Page 1197 ]
Columbians are calling on government to implement. The success of the community campaign and the goal of accessible, affordable, quality child care are now corroborated by the chief economist of the TD Bank of Canada, Craig Alexander, and are reflected in the recent unanimous resolution at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce a couple of weeks ago calling on the federal government to examine a national child care plan.

Enclosed in your package is the September 24, 2014, article from the Vancouver Sun editorial board supporting the call with compelling economic arguments for the $10-a-day plan. Our support now includes 31 municipal and regional governments; 22 boards of education; a credit union; all major unions in B.C.; many small businesses; thousands of parents and grandparents; chambers of commerce; boards of trade; a long list of notable academics, federal politicians and senators; a major media outlet, etc., etc., etc.

Interesting to note on page 2 of my presentation, if you have a chance to look, is a comparison of the British Columbia early-years strategy and the Manitoba child care plan. We note that in May 2014 the government’s recent announcement of capital funding to support the creation of 1,000 new spaces by March 2015, with an additional 1,000 the next year, is one of the major weaknesses of B.C.’s existing early-years strategy.

Only 18 percent of children under age 12 currently have access to a space in B.C. today. Given that the child population is expected to increase by at least 15,000 children between now and 2016, adding only 2,000 more spaces means that overall access will be declining.

Plus, parent fees in B.C. currently range from an average of $9,000 annually for preschoolers to $13,000 for younger children. My day job is providing child care services in East Vancouver, and I can tell you that many families leave licensed, quality child care simply because they can’t keep up with the fees. There’s a crisis happening right before our eyes. Clearly, the B.C. government is not addressing the serious crisis in child care and overall family affordability in our province today.

To further illustrate the weakness of B.C.’s early-years strategy, consider, by comparison, Manitoba’s child care plan. While both provincial governments identify key issues, that’s where the similarity ends. Manitoba’s child population is one-third of British Columbia’s, but they promised 5,000 spaces, compared to the 2,000 in B.C. They’ve capped fees at $5,172 annually for children in their province. B.C.’s fees are not capped at all.

The B.C. early-years strategy does not make child care more affordable, as promised with the introduction of an early childhood tax credit of $55 a month starting next year. And certainly in quality, the 2 percent increase in operating funds in Manitoba is far greater than the bursary program that has been introduced, or reintroduced, in British Columbia.

Number 1, endorse the $10-a-day child care plan for B.C. Be part of the growing, huge, cross-sectoral support for the plan. Prepare British Columbia to take advantage of new federal funds by immediately implementing the remaining recommended next steps, which are these.

Put child care at the top of the agenda in discussions with the federal government and call on all federal parties to make substantial child care commitments. Federal transfers of dedicated funds to build early care and learning systems will make implementation even more affordable for our province.

Follow the lead of the majority of provinces and territories — and this is a low-cost, no-cost option for you — moving child care out of the Ministry of Children and Family Development and into the Ministry of Education. The majority of provinces and territories have already made that move. Newfoundland and Labrador was the last, and we’re starting to joke that B.C. will be the last in Canada to make the move. This costs government little and ensures that from the start the plan is implemented in a way that ends the false divide between early care and early learning.

Immediately implement a moratorium on public funds for the growth of commercial child care chains. Instead, work with many municipalities and school boards who have endorsed the plan to expand access through public and community-owned spaces. The latter approach promotes public accountability for public funds.

Lastly, immediately reduce fees to $10 a day in all licensed infant and toddler programs that embrace accountability requirements. This will create immediate relief for families who now pay some of the highest fees in the country. It’s a better investment than the planned 2015 tax benefit for families, which will cost government $147 million but will not provide families enough to make a dent in their child care fees.

I look forward to any questions you might have and hope that you will take the time, with the many briefs you’ve received, to peruse this information.

G. Holman: Thanks, Sharon, for the presentation. I believe you came to us last year as well.

G. Holman: We did make a fairly general recommendation about looking at ways to improve the affordability of child care. That’s as far as we went.

I’m sorry if I’m missing it. I guess I’m looking for kind of a…. I guess it depends who your funding partners are — for example, if the federal government comes in — but what is the estimated cost if the province had to support
[ Page 1198 ]
it? How do you get there? You’re suggesting the $147 million would be diverted, reallocated. You’re suggesting that mothers who are able to work would be generating income taxes for the province. Is there an overall cost, and have you built that kind of funding model or scenario?

S. Gregson: Yes, we have. We’ve been very fortunate to work with some colleagues at the human early learning partnership at UBC, who have done the costing model for us. That would have been done by accountants and economists, not child care advocates.

Really, the plan depends on how fast government decides to move with implementation. Our suggestion is based on MCFD’s numbers that to immediately implement the recommendation that calls for fees to be reduced to $10 a day for infants and toddlers in every existing licensed space in the province would cost about $88 million — far less than the $147 million promised in a tax credit. We’re suggesting that as a starting place — to immediately reduce those fees.

When fully implemented, the gross investment is $1.5 billion. That does not take into account the returns from more women able to enter and re-enter the workforce and participate in the economy and contribute tax dollars.

The experience in Quebec has been that yes, they’re making a sizable investment, but they’re actually seeing returns to government that are covering the cost of that investment.

G. Holman: If you could provide, before the 17th, information like that, it would be helpful.

S. Gregson: Yes, we do have a costing sheet, which I’d be very happy to e-mail to you.

E. Foster: A big part of my question was just answered. Thank you. But always remember that the reason they’re successful in Quebec is that they get a lot of our money.

S. Gregson: Actually, the child care system has nothing to do with transfer payments there.

S. Gregson: Well, the economists would say that the revenue that’s being generated by more parents participating in the workforce is increasing the GDP enough to actually return to government the costs of the investment. That’s Pierre Fortin, the economist, who would say that.

G. Heyman: You have made reference to return on investment from child care. The obvious one is more people working and paying taxes, but are there any other ones that help the economy in general that you’d like to point out and put on the record?

S. Gregson: The compelling arguments that the editorial board from the Vancouver Sun raised have to do with having a well-educated workforce. The chief economist from the TD Bank talks about education starting with our youngest children and needing to make sure that we have well-educated people right from the start.

So labour force shortages, having well-trained people, the ability of mothers to move off social assistance in many cases, to move into post-secondary education, people to better participate in the workforce — these are all good-news stories for government.

M. Morris: When I look at what’s happening in society, we seem to have lost a generation of parental skills — maybe a couple of generations of parental skills and whatnot. I see this as another significant step in the direction of have our children and farm them off to somebody else to bring up. I’m still coming from a generation where my wife stayed at home and looked after the kids when they were starting off — and same with my parents.

Has there ever been a study done that you’re aware of that can compare the results and the benefits to the society of stay-at-home parents bringing up their children, instilling values and accountability and stuff in their children versus the method that you’re talking about?

S. Gregson: Mike, I’m trying really hard not to be offended when you talk about children being farmed out to child care, because high-quality child care actually is an extension of the family, not attempting to be a replacement for it. The early childhood educators who I work with and that I have met in my life have actually been a support to families.

Yes, there is lots of work that has been done to show that exposure and experiences in high-quality early childhood education programs are beneficial. Children do very well once they enter the school system. They’ve got school-readiness skills. There’s no way that a quality child care program would ever try to replace family values. People choose child care that’s an extension of their values.

I think that, yes, as you’ve said yourself, that is a little bit of an outdated response — “My wife stayed at home, at work” — and that perhaps that should be the norm. That’s not the norm anymore. Most women are actually in the labour force, either part-time or full-time, and it’s only right that the taxes that they pay should support the services that their children need.

We need to make sure that children are not in dark, dingy basements in front of television sets — that old stereotype. We need to make sure that we’re using all the best practice, all the best research we know, about what high-quality early childhood education is all about.
[ Page 1199 ]

M. Morris: I guess the crux of my question was: have we looked at the research on the benefits of children staying at home versus going to these institutions?

S. Gregson: There’s lots of that research. It isn’t a versus. It’s that whatever we do for children, whatever options we provide for parents, we want to make sure that they are excellent options. Children who participate in early childhood education programs often actually do academically better the first couple of years, in school particularly. They’ve got more school-readiness skills. But it isn’t ever a stay-at-home mom versus a working mom, and I think we need to really shy away from those stereotypes.

D. Ashton (Chair): Up next we have Dr. Nixdorf, Pacific Spine Research and Education Foundation.

Sir, welcome. Thank you very much for coming. We have ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll give you a two-minute warning and five minutes for questions or comments. The floor is yours.

D. Nixdorf: On behalf of the Pacific Spine Research and Education Foundation, I’d like to thank the Chair and the committee for the opportunity to present today.

My name is Dr. Don Nixdorf. I’m the previous executive director for the B.C. Chiropractic Association and College of Chiropractors of British Columbia.

I’ve had the privilege of presenting to this committee, as well as the Select Standing Committee on Health, in years before. Government delivery under these two ministries is a critical and integrative process recognized by the almost 50 percent of the budget spent on health care. The planning to fund and deliver health services is the number one priority for B.C. and every jurisdiction.

A new academic institute of chiropractic is being planned for British Columbia. I believe that in 2012 when I had the privilege of presenting to the committee, we briefly touched on it at that time. It would be the only chiropractic school in western Canada. Letters of support from the chiropractic associations of the western provinces have been received, enthusiastically supporting and participating in this.

Discussions are also underway between the B.C. Chiropractic Association and the century-old University of Western States in Portland, the chiropractic school there, to explore the possible role of the development of optimum education, training and research programs. Presently about 20 percent to 30 percent of the students practising in British Columbia today are alum of the University of Western States.

The associated-based research foundation, the Pacific Spine Research and Education Foundation, supports research and development of partnerships with a primary focus on spine-related neurological and neurophysiological health and health care technologies.

This new academic institute and associated research foundation will enhance B.C.’s technology capabilities, contribute to the local and provincial economy, expand community health capacity, increase employment and encourage community and corporate partnerships.

With a focus on building support for knowledge-based products, processes and services, the research foundation will assist in the purchase of necessary equipment to engage in applied research, the development of highly qualified personnel and the building of applications to attract commercial partners. In addition, the foundation will facilitate international partnerships in research and development as well as technology-sharing.

Currently the foundation is focused on raising the required capital to build and outfit the school with state-of-the-art equipment and technology. Ongoing operating costs, I stress, will be covered by the student tuition once the school establishes its presence in British Columbia. And that was a question of key importance to the previous select standing committee as well.

The foundation’s purposes include primarily health and education needs. Most provincial residents planning an academic or a clinical career in chiropractic must leave the province — and Canada, in general — for their education. These individuals, many with pre-professional degrees, attend an accredited school in the U.S.A., Europe and Australia.

At this point, I should point out that the chiropractic profession is the only profession that has international accreditation, which I submitted at meetings of the AIT, TILMA and western provinces on labour mobility. Unlike nurses, physicians and others, our profession established an international accreditation process over 50 years ago so that students, regardless of accredited school, are guaranteed labour mobility in any country and, of course, all the provinces of Canada.

Over 1,000 doctors currently practise in British Columbia. They contribute millions of dollars to the B.C. economy. Many will be retiring soon, with one-third of practitioners over the age of 50. A school in B.C. will allow new prospective students to stay here, purchase homes and build their businesses.

Health care demonstrates that over 30 percent of all patient access to the health care system is for spine and related neuromuscular skeletal conditions. The World Health Organization reported in 2013 that the estimates
[ Page 1200 ]
of low back pain alone are among the top ten DALY, adjusted life years, causing diseases and injuries. I would pause here to point out to you that…. When the World Health Organization represents low back pain, I’d remind you that there are either 22 or 21 vertebrae above the low back, depending how you count the involved vertebrae in the lower back. So it represents a much larger factor in health care.

Key studies that support the need for the services include, as I mentioned, the World Health Organization. Many researchers identify low back pain as a very common health problem, and the costs in the U.S. range from $100 billion to $200 billion annually, two-thirds of which are due to decreased wages and productivity. As part of the global burden of disease study, the results show that low back pain is among the top ten, as I mentioned, with an average number higher than HIV, road injuries, tuberculosis, lung cancer, COPD and pre-term birth complications.

We also have studies that are population-based. I’ll draw your attention to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies of chiropractic management of low back pain, funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health in 1993. This was followed by the Wells report for the ministry in Ontario, which sought to make implementations. The study showed that there would be highly significant cost savings if more management of low back pain, at least, was transferred from physicians to chiropractors. Evidence from Canada and other countries supports potential savings, and these can be found in the Muse and Associates reports as well as published findings from Legorreta of California.

Primary care includes complete multidisciplinary or integrated health clinics. These will experience major savings from lower costs in auxiliary services, fewer hospitalizations and a highly significant reduction in chronic problems, as well as in all levels and duration of disability. Workers compensation studies report that injured workers with the same specific diagnosis of low back pain return to work much sooner when treated with chiropractic care. This leads to very significant reductions in direct and indirect costs.

These submissions have been previously made to B.C.’s Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs and, closer to home, Conversation on Health, Royal Commission on Workers Compensation in B.C. and the B.C. government ICBC review committee, which spoke to improving health delivery and lower costs. These submissions each included published research in addition to utilization costs and outcomes data from the Medical Services Plan of B.C., WorkSafe B.C. as well as ICBC.

The foundation will raise funds to support the academic institute’s plan for highly integrated research, education and practice activities and network globally with complementary and like-minded individuals and organizations. The plan calls for a significant research institute and clinic with researchers, practitioners, students and faculty moving amongst these various facets. New employment for administration, education and support staff is estimated at 75 FTE.

The financial plans are currently based on 2013-2014 comparable tuition rates in North America, which average today about $25,000 per year, over a four-year course. Research and clinic activities are intended to become self-funding as quickly as possible. A board and academic education structure will govern the not-for-profit tax charity B.C.-based qualifying school. It will be designed with an annual intake of approximately 100 students and a planned FTE total student population of approximately 400.

The doctoral program would seek and employ leading-edge technology, design and learning strategies. The flagship research institute will operate from day one and take advantage of a state-of-the-art anatomy lab.

One of the main reasons that we want to draw your attention to the academic institute in terms of “why now?” is the relationships that we have with government over the years with the Ministry of Health, ICBC, WCB. The B.C. chiropractors have previously donated $500,000 to establish a UBC research professorship and an additional $250,000 over five years for knowledge transfer.

We have also established 14 research chairs across universities all across Canada, and we’ve reached the point now where chiropractic doctors need to be supported in their own personal support of these institutions across Canada and in B.C. We have one institution in Quebec, one in Toronto. We have approximately 500 Canadians attending U.S.-based schools, Europe and Australasia.

This will be western Canada's and B.C.’s only chiropractic academic institute, which will provide capacity for students to stay in B.C., receive their education, benefit the B.C. economy and support the primary care and integrated health care which the previous work has demonstrated has such prevalence in society.

The total financial requirement we’re funding to is $26 million. B.C. chiropractors have contributed up to $5 million, in addition, at this time. This is in addition to the $500,000 that we’ve already spent at UBC.

In summary, the Pacific academic institute represents a major investment that benefits residents from the western provinces by providing more affordable health care education. The new institute adds to the provincial economy through new job creation as well as additional health human resources and research capacity.

Knowledge transfer will benefit all sectors impacted by the burden of health care costs reported by all the health authorities, including CIHI, WHO and even WorkSafe B.C., which has 25 percent of the workforce off for low back pain alone.

We ask the Ministry of Finance to support fundraising
[ Page 1201 ]
initiatives by the Pacific Spine Research and Education Foundation for the development of the Pacific academic institute of chiropractic.

G. Heyman: Thank you for the presentation. Can you be more specific about what support for the fundraising initiatives would look like?

D. Nixdorf: Well, we’d be pleased if the government were willing to consider matching funds to the $5.7 million that the B.C. chiropractors have personally contributed. We’ll be soliciting presentations to the public. We’ll be going to the corporate sector. We’ll be going to the union sector. We’ll also be going with our western provinces to the western economic diversification fund, whose prior history has funded optometry and veterinary schools in the western provinces.

Because this school will be western Canada’s only school, there are no other plans to have another school in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. We know the student population is coming from those provinces, and 70 percent today of the doctors practising in B.C. go to the United States. Ninety percent of those practising in Alberta go to the United States. We feel that the supply-demand as well as the prevalence of this condition that has already been identified are of importance to B.C. and the economy.

M. Morris: What’s the government involvement in those? Are there ongoing commitments to those institutes that the government is funding every year?

D. Nixdorf: The University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières is pretty much exclusive to the Quebec population. The school is part of the University of Quebec system, so there is indirect support that the Quebec government gives that institution.

The Toronto-based school, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, has received grants. It has received support in-kind. But there is no direct cost-sharing, and there are no operating funds from the Ministry of Health of Ontario or the ministry of advanced education for operating costs to that school. Again, those are borne by students and by chiropractors, historically.

For myself, starting in 1972 I funded through a donation to the Toronto school up until about the year 2000. That ended for a variety of reasons. We’re now focusing our interests and our support to western Canada for the reasons that I’ve already mentioned, and we think this is a high priority that will significantly improve human health resources and contribute significantly to lowering costs for health care.

E. Foster: I’ve got your website up here. I was just curious as to…. One of the comments there was golf or surgery. I was just wondering if you’ve figured out a way that I can charge my insurance company for golf lessons that make my back better.

D. Nixdorf: Well, I think with a very creative diagnosis and care plan, we can probably show that exercise is essential to the prevention of your spine problems, and you’ll have to show what type of golf that is.

G. Heyman: I’m just curious if you know or you’ve heard from the government of B.C. or any other government what the rationale is for no capital funding for chiropractic colleges but a variety of supports for various faculties of medicine.

D. Nixdorf: We’re historically sensitive that this government and previous governments have been reluctant to fund additional per-capita student funding. Because all the 18 schools in North America are all private tuition–based, we’ve built our model on that assumption. Certainly, though, if the students in the future are entitled or will receive the consideration of FTE funding to some level, we think the students will be extremely grateful. But in the meantime we’ve planned this around the possibility that there isn’t FTE funding for students.

We are looking for assistance and capital grants for not the operating costs but for expensive technology, like MRIs, and outfitting the school with laboratory and other processes for the teaching. So it’s more the capital grant than the operating costs.

D. Ashton (Chair): Doctor, thank you. We’re out of time. But thank you for very much for your input.

D. Ashton (Chair): You might want to hang around. We have Dr. Robinson from the College of Chiropractors.

D. Nixdorf: I’m familiar with that gentleman. I may just stay and hear what he has to say. Thank you.

D. Ashton (Chair): Doctor, welcome. Thank you very much for coming.
[ Page 1202 ]

E. Foster: Are you going to make the comment about an adjustment? You guys need an adjustment to your….

D. Ashton (Chair): Your GPS, I think. Or can I give you a hard time about where you went?

J. Robinson: We do need an adjustment on our GPS and our skills to read e-mails. And I appreciate your understanding with fitting us in today.

D. Ashton (Chair): We’re able to fit you in. Doctor, we have ten minutes for the presentation. I’ll give you a two-minute warning and then five minutes for questions. So please, proceed.

I’m the newer version of executive director for the B.C. Chiropractic Association. I’ve followed Dr. Nixdorf in his footsteps. On behalf of the B.C. Chiropractic Association, I want to thank you very much for this opportunity to present today. I’m joined, as you know, by Dr. Robinson, our president of the association.

In our brief presentation today we will be covering off a little bit of information on the B.C. Chiropractic Association, our profession as well as the linkages and the synergies between our association and the Ministry of Health through the documented priorities, the health care priorities, that were released earlier this year.

Unique to our presentation is that we are not asking for money today. We’re simply asking that the government agree to let us help you save money, create a patient-centred health care system as well as a multi-discipline, multi-collaborative model of health care delivery. That’s all we’re trying to do today.

The association is a voluntary organization. We represent chiropractic doctors. As Dr. Nixdorf said, there are around 1,100 chiropractic doctors in the province, and our role is that of providing value-added services for our members, as well as influencing health policy and public education on the profession. We were established in 1934.

What you should know about us is that over 800,000 individuals visit their family chiropractors every year. As well, on average these are seven visits per patient.

Over 61 percent of British Columbians have visited a chiropractor. That’s an interesting statistic. What you should also know is that 81 percent of the individuals who have visited chiropractors would recommend chiropractic for health care options to their illnesses and concerns.

What we also are very familiar with is the reality of the situation currently relative to the health care system. Almost 50 cents of every dollar of B.C. taxpayer dollars goes toward health care. We also know that, as Dr. Nixdorf articulated, spine and related musculoskeletal represent 33 percent of all health care daily care. Furthermore, we also are familiar with the fact that research demonstrates that chiropractic care provides the best outcomes for lower back pain.

It’s nice to see some of you again. I know I’ve spoken to a few of you in the past.

In putting part of this talk together and in talks we’ve put together in the past, we referenced the document from the Ministry of Health on setting priorities for B.C.’s health care system. That’s where the desired future of health care was described and priorities were set out. It supports the health and well-being of British Columbians, delivers a system of responsible and effective health care, and ensures value for money. Obviously, in the association we want to align with you on that, and we feel strongly about those same kinds of initiatives.

One of the things that was put forth in that document was providing patient-centred care. That’s something that B.C.’s chiropractors do, and we’re interested in developing more resources around that. We’ve had programs with the B.C. government in the past where we’ve aligned with them to help with initiatives along those kinds of lines.

Another priority of that is to directly implement a targeted and effective primary prevention and health promotion through a coordinated delivery system. We’ve done things along the lines of a program with WorkSafe — Think Twice, Lift Once — and another program called Pack It Light, Wear It Right, which goes out to school children every year.

These are preventative in nature. The Think Twice, Lift Once goes out on worksites all over the province. There’s a picture later on in your document here that shows that in action, and it helps keep B.C.’s workers from ever getting hurt in the first place.

The Pack It Light, Wear It Right program goes out to school children and helps them recognize the value of how to pack and wear a backpack properly when they have to carry stuff to school every year.

Along those same kinds of lines, we donate a large amount of backpacks to the Salvation Army every year. Along with other corporate sponsors, we get backpacks into the hands of B.C.’s underprivileged children, to put our money where our mouth is in promoting health for our up-and-coming generations.

One of the other priorities was to implement a provincial system of primary and community care built around interprofessional teams and functions. Other provinces are already starting to do this. We’ve seen this movement take off now in the United States. This is where we’ve got health care professionals working together to
[ Page 1203 ]
solve a patient’s issues.

Communication between health care professionals is one of the cornerstones of successful care. We know from all kinds of research done by everybody all over the world that when you put this into place more effectively, the overall costs go down, patient satisfaction goes up, and incidence decreases as well.

We’re actively advocating for more integrated models of health care delivery, and actually, one of the things we are asking from you is your support in how to make that kind of thing happen. It doesn’t come in the form of asks for money. It comes in the form of asks for inclusion. We’d like to be included in the programs that are being developed now.

One of the things we feel strongly about is the need to promote prevention. We’ve talked about that a little bit there for a moment already. One of the things that we want to do, again, is to partner with the Ministry of Health to develop programs and to continue on programs like the one we’ve already developed.

You may have seen this on worksites’ billboards, on the WorkSafe billboard in Richmond. It’s advertised fairly strongly throughout the province now. That is our logo — I guess, for lack of a better word — on how to help B.C.’s workers from getting injured in the first place. We’ve got a long partnership with WorkSafe on that, where we’ve done television ads — we’ve got a retail program; we’ve got a construction program — all designed out there to reduce the incidence of injury in the first place.

I’m going to skip a few of the pages, which are things that we’ve already talked about, and go right to our recommendation page, which is what we would like to have happen. We would like more money to be allocated to health professionals to help address prevention issues. That’s what I’ve already alluded to. We’d like to work closer with government and all health care professionals to address the needs of patients.

We’re in the middle of putting together with the health care ministry at this time a program that would reduce waiting times for access to X-ray and imaging for B.C.’s patients. Currently there can be up to a month-long wait if a patient presents to a chiropractor, and we have ways to reduce that time of wait and to get patients into care quicker. You’re paying for the X-ray anyway, so we have ways to actually turn that around and make that time go away.

Of course, the last thing — which Don has talked about already — is the B.C. school of chiropractic. I won’t talk long about that, but obviously, we’re in great support of that. We’d like your help in making that happen as well, in any way possible.

G. Heyman: Thank you very much for your presentation, and thank you for the work that your members do.

You mentioned that you would like to help the government, save the government money, and you talked about introduction to a collaborative care model. I’m wondering if you have, through the Canadian association or anywhere else, some studies that show the before-and-after health care costs in a jurisdiction where such a model was implemented.

While you might not have it off the top of your head, if we receive it by the 17th, this Friday, we’ll be able to ensure it’s part of the official record of our considerations.

J. Robinson: I can certainly ask about that. Chiropractic care has been included into Ontario’s family practice program as of last October, but it’s very recent. It might be too soon to actually have any relevant figures back. When we checked at the beginning of the year, it was still just getting started up.

Other jurisdictions have other types of models that don’t necessarily relate exactly to the same way we do business — all of us here in B.C. I don’t have anything more meaningful than that.

M. Morris: Just to carry on with George’s line there. Your priority 3: “Implement a provincial system of primary community care built around interprofessional teams and functions.” You say: “Other provinces across North America” — and jurisdictions, but I’m interested in the provinces — “have adopted chiropractic as part of the primary health care teams with positive outcomes for patients.”

You mentioned Ontario. Was there any other province that has partnered up with a chiropractic association?

J. Robinson: Probably the best province to be a hybrid of where we are now and Ontario’s system would be Alberta themselves. Although different, they have a similar type of situation as ours, and they’re much more integrative — much more communication between the chiropractic doctors, the medical doctors, the hospitals. Chiropractors are referring into hospitals. Funding is going back and forth.

The chiropractic college works with the medical college, and funding flows from the government through the two and creates a situation where everybody — patients, doctors and physicians alike — can all benefit from that kind of trading of information and cooperation over patients. That’s ultimately what we all want.

E. Foster: On your recommendations to allocate money to health professionals to help address prevention issues…. I think everybody certainly wants to do that. I guess my ask, to you, going the other way…. I don’t think that a lot of the health professionals are really trained. Like, if you have a truck, you do preventative maintenance. They’re trained to fix things once they’re broken,
[ Page 1204 ]
and I think we need to change that.

The money’s a good idea, but first we’ve got to have a plan on how we’re actually going to teach people to do the preventative stuff, because it really isn’t out there as much, maybe, as it should be. But I certainly support it. If we get people out of the system, it’s going to save us a pile of money.

J. Robinson: I would agree with that, in the overall health care sense. When it comes to chiropractic care, chiropractors are trained directly in that to reduce patient incidents. A patient comes in, they have a problem. One of the goals is to teach them how not to have that problem again. That’s reasonably successful.

R. Nickelchok: Eric, in a practical perspective, we also have partnerships with the B.C. Professional Golf Association. We’re working on an initiative that will actually get our members out and meeting with their members to talk about preventative strategies and energies, rehab, but also extend that relationship to the members at a particular golf course. We’re addressing creating a whole new program, a whole new initiative, to educate through a preventative strategy.

We’re also doing that with FIOSA and MIOSA — coming up with a strategy and working on their transportation initiative.

S. Hamilton: Thank you for the presentation. I’m interested in this school. Besides just simply creating a faculty and saying, “We are now in the business,” and throwing money at bricks and mortar and the like, what are the steps? How do we get there? It’s a lofty goal, creating a school of chiropractic at SFU. That’s great, but we’re here, and that seems to be a million miles away. I’m kind of curious as to how we’re going to get there, and how you propose, as an association, to lead the way.

J. Robinson: We have created a foundation that is responsible for doing actually that. Dr. Nixdorf is the chair of that foundation, and he could probably bring out more of the granular items on that. But at the end of the day, yeah, that’s right. We have resourced several other people who have experience in this, from both Canada and the United States, to help us build this school, to help us design what needs to happen, because I’m a chiropractor. I know nothing about building schools.

S. Hamilton: Having said that, Mr. Chair, I’d be interested in following up on that broader discussion as we go forward.

D. Ashton (Chair): Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming in. I do apologize; we’re on a tight schedule. Again, thanks for making the extra effort to get here. It was greatly appreciated.

Up next we have Alliance for Arts and Culture — Mr. Gloor, I think it is. Is that correct?

We have ten minutes for the presentation and five minutes for Q and As. Please go ahead.

R. Gloor: Thank you. My name is Rob Gloor. I’m the executive director for the Alliance for Arts and Culture.

The Alliance represents over 350 organizations active in the cultural sector in B.C. Our members come from all disciplines of arts, culture and heritage and include both professional companies and community organizations. They employ artists and cultural workers by the thousands. They engage volunteers, who put in hundreds of thousands of hours. Their combined budgets are tens of millions of dollars, much of it leveraged by small but critical investment from the provincial government.

I’d like to take a second to thank the committee for taking the time to hear the views of British Columbians across the province. I know it’s a long process. It’s certainly appreciated to have this opportunity.

Many British Columbians — really, all British Columbians — actually live and breathe on the impact of culture in their communities. Whether they’re aware of it or not, consciously, they’re involved in the cultural life of their communities in their daily lives. The province’s relationship to that cultural life of British Columbia is critical.

Just some perspective on the workforce in arts and culture. Cultural workers in Canada, overall, make up 3.3 percent of the overall labour force. That’s over 600,000 workers, more than the 300,000 in forestry or 135,000 in the auto industry. The impact of culture is huge.

Direct and indirect economic activity combined, the cultural sector generates $85 billion, or 7½ percent of our GDP. It impacts over one million jobs.

The interesting story in British Columbia is that our workers here are an even larger proportion than the national average. It’s 3.7 percent of our workforce here,
[ Page 1205 ]
compared to 3.3 percent nationally. That’s 87,000 people who work in the cultural sector. B.C. also has the highest rates of cultural donors. Over 125,000 people make donations to non-profit arts and culture organizations.

The organizations on the non-profit side also are supported by another 88,000 volunteers who give of their time in their communities. We have one of the highest rates of attendance and participation in culture. By population, we have the second-highest level of consumer spending on culture.

We know that arts and culture contribute to the economy, producing jobs, contributing strongly to the GDP, attracting skilled workers, building tourism and driving economic activity of small businesses. We also know that arts and culture develop healthy communities, promoting connections across diverse groups, increasing literacy, developing leadership and self-esteem in our children, reducing youth violence, promoting lifelong learning, increasing philanthropy and volunteerism.

All of these are tangible, measurable and proven effects of culture in communities. Arts and culture work in tandem with all of our collective priorities for health, education and economic development.

What happens when we take culture for granted or pretend it’s not really connected to those other priorities? It’s like what happens when we put off maintenance on roads, stop investing in our bridges for awhile. We save some money now, but eventually we have disintegration, the collapse of our infrastructure — far more costly and devastating in the long run.

Culture is part of our social infrastructure of the province. It is a foundation in our society. It’s our culture that connects us and defines us as a population. It’s critical if we have any desire to build a better home for future generations. When we ignore its importance, our children lose.

The amazing thing is that the stats I told you about earlier create this wonderful opportunity in B.C. with the abundance of artists that live here, the outstanding creativity of British Columbians, the amazing volume of output. We have virtually untapped potential to make a mark on the world in our own time and build an amazing, caring, healthy, creative and productive B.C. for our children. It takes just a few small steps with big impact.

We would ask that the B.C. government increase its funding to the B.C. Arts Council grant programs from the current $24 million to $32 million and, over the term of the current mandate, to $40 million. This would start to address the backlog of demand already in the system, stimulating new creation that’s waiting to happen and creating innovation in our communities, leveraging increased investment from other sectors at the same time.

Further to B.C. Arts Council funding, we ask that community gaming grants be increased to $156 million from the current $134 million, including reinstatement of the capital grants program, and then continue to grow gaming grants year over year as gaming revenues increase, as the economy increases and as the needs increase.

Invest in our creative industries, the profit-generating side of the cultural sector, through increased funding to Creative B.C. to make sure that the product that is being consumed and marketed all over the world has origin in B.C. and B.C. artists creating it.

Introduce a cultural infrastructure fund for major capital redevelopment, for the long-term thinking that could help to reshape B.C.’s creative future.

All these investments are very small in relation to the impact of arts and culture in our society and our economy, and especially in relation to the long-term impact on the lives of British Columbians.

M. Morris: You say all of the requests are relatively small. I was kind of going through them in my head, and they were adding up pretty significantly. Have you costed them out? What exactly is the ask in every little segment that you were asking for? It’s verging on $100 million a year or more?

R. Gloor: No. I’m asking for an increase of $8 million to B.C. Arts Council and $22 million in gaming, which would take gaming grants back to where they were in 2008, which hasn’t been restored. The capital grants program that’s part of that…. That, by the way, the gaming grants — I should be very clear — is a request on behalf of the entire non-profit sector, not just arts and culture.

Arts and culture receives about $15 million out of the $134 million that is in the gaming grants, but we’re looking at the overall allocation to gaming that benefits the entire non-profit community, volunteer-driven sector.

R. Gloor: Yes. I’m asking to look at an infrastructure program. I’m not asking for a particular amount there but looking at the opportunities for investment in facilities and long-term bricks-and-mortar projects, which are often opportunities to leverage federal funds and local philanthropic funds to ensure that there’s a plan and not just an ad hoc approach to significant capital investment from the province.

G. Holman: Thanks for the presentation. Just a couple of quick questions. You mentioned, I thought, 600,000 jobs and 85,000. Is the 85,000 correct, and the 600,000 is sort of all of the multiplier?

R. Gloor: The 600,000 is national; 87,000 is the B.C. figure, which is actually a higher proportion of our population here than nationally.
[ Page 1206 ]

G. Holman: I just was wondering if you had any data on the funds that you lever as a sector. It would be useful to have as a committee, if you’ve got any data on that.

R. Gloor: I don’t have any here, but I can certainly share what we know. Unfortunately, one of the challenges of some of the funding that’s been cut from the cultural sector at the federal level is cuts to the cultural office of Stats Canada and the Canadian Conference of the Arts, which was a significant research institute. So it’s much more difficult now than it used to be to make those comparisons.

There are some recent comparative studies that I’ll share. Most of them reflect on numbers that were final numbers as of about 2010. You know how it takes that sort of lag time to come out with any stats.

In general terms, in that time B.C. was the lowest funder of arts and culture programs of all the provinces on a per-capita basis and has made some steps to improve the level of funding in 2012. At that time we also were getting the lowest funding of any province on the federal level. So the B.C. leadership on the funding of the sector does have a correlation to the level of funding that is generated from federal programs, such as Canada Council and Canadian Heritage.

D. Ashton (Chair): Thanks, Rob. Just a quick question. There’s so much demand, and dollars, as you know, are hard to come by these days. Do you believe in sunset clauses for operations, where there is financing for a period of time, and then it moves to help something else?

R. Gloor: We can observe programs like that in some other jurisdictions with some sort of mixed results of creating a sense of stability. There has to be a recognition that there’s an ongoing need. There’s a difference between those sorts of programs, which are valuable, that can help to start something new, with a plan for how that funding would be replaced over time. The Ontario Trillium Foundation did a lot of its funding — which is their gaming funds, if you will — on that basis.

Also, as that infrastructure piece, there’s a need for the ongoing maintenance, the ongoing support of what are essentially community improvement programs. Like many other programs operating for the overall public good, there’s an ongoing need for that support and to ensure that the social structure is not something that is entirely dependent on a profit-generating model. There is an ongoing need for philanthropic support, business support and government support for the arts and culture sector.

D. Ashton (Chair): Thank you. Have a good day. Thanks for your presentation today.

D. Ashton (Chair): You’ve been sitting there for a while. You came early. I’ve been trying to catch up.

You’ve heard the times. It’s ten, and I’ll give you a warning if you get close to that. Then we have five minutes for questions.

J. Block: My name is John Block, and I am president of the Donors Rights Society. We are committed to lobbying for public support for a donors rights provision in our B.C. Society Act.

The B.C. Society Act provides the legal framework for approximately 26,000 registered charities and non-profit organizations in our province. We know that our public charities make a very vital contribution to the social and economic well-being of our communities. They are engaged in many important social programs, which offer support to countless people in need. Our governments are relying much more on public charities to fill the gaps created by budget limitations.

In the coming years much more will be asked of our public charities because of a rapidly aging population and shrinking workforce. According to the B.C. statistical agency, within about 15 years one in four persons in this province will be 65 or older. Our rapidly aging population will present many social and economic challenges in the years to come.

If we are to meet the increasing social needs of British Columbians, the public will need to be much more involved in our public charities. If the hard-working people of our province are to take up this challenge, there will need to be a very high degree of confidence in not only the leadership of public charities but also in the effectiveness of programs they are funding.

We believe charities will need to become much more transparent as to how they manage the funds that have been entrusted to them and how they communicate with the communities that support them. We believe the public is becoming more concerned about the lack of transparency in the public charity sector.

In recent years there has been a decline in the number of people in our province supporting public charities. According the Fraser Institute’s 2013 annual generosity index report, less than 23 percent of people in our province that file tax returns support charities. This report also indicates people are giving less to charities relative to their annual income than in previous years. Evidence of this decline was confirmed by the United Way’s announcement earlier this year that after five consecutive years of declining donations, they were cutting support
[ Page 1207 ]
to various programs.

In 2013 the Muttart Foundation, a national charitable organization, released a report talking about charities. Their research indicates that there has been a general decline of public confidence in our public charity leadership in recent years. The report indicates that 52 percent of Canadians believe that charities spend excessively on wages, salaries, administration, marketing costs, etc. People are not satisfied with the limited information on how their donations are employed and the effectiveness of programs funded by donations.

Their research also indicates that most people believe that a board of directors of a public charity should not be in charge of the day-to-day business of a charity. They believe this responsibility should be in the hands of an independent body.

Their surveys indicate that only 34 percent of Canadians believe that charities only ask for money when they really need it. We believe that the lack of accountability and transparency and the conflict-of-interest problems within our public charity sector are contributing to the decline in public support for our charities.

Many of these charities have a very restrictive voting membership policy. Some would use the term “closed shops.”

These charities restrict voting membership to members of a board of directors. Volunteers and financial supporters cannot attend the annual general meeting of the charity, cannot participate in the board nomination process, cannot question board members or staff at a meeting of the membership or participate in significant financial decisions. Essentially, the people that determine the value of these charities in the community — which are the volunteers, which are the donors — cannot participate in the decision-making of these charities in any way.

In contrast, when you look at the board of directors of a public, for-profit corporation, they are accountable to shareholders, and shareholders have very specific rights, which are summarized in the B.C. corporation act and the Canada Business Corporations Act.

If we examine the obligations of a board of directors of a credit union, they are accountable to a voting membership. Again, credit union members have very specific rights, which are summarized in the Credit Union Incorporation Act.

We have approximately 13,000 non-profit organizations in our province that have been incorporated under the B.C. Society Act. These organizations include community centres, sports clubs, professional organizations, advocacy groups and other community-based organizations.

The great majority of these non-profit organizations are represented by a board of directors that is accountable to a voting membership. This is not the case with a significant number of the approximately 12,800 publicly registered charities in our province.

In our view, the solution would be that a board of directors of a publicly registered charity should, in fact, be accountable to a voting membership. Volunteers and financial supporters of public charities should have the opportunity to become a voting member of the charity they support. Voting membership should be available to anyone that is prepared to make a commitment to a publicly registered charity’s constitution and bylaws.

Voting members should have very specific rights that should include the right to participate in the board nomination process, the right to make proposals at a meeting of the membership and the right to question board members and staff at a membership meeting.

We believe that voting members are much more likely to become volunteers, much more likely to be generous in their financial support and much more likely to be vocal advocates for the work of the charity in the communities.

Benefits of a donors rights provision in our act would, we believe, include improved transparency and accountability of our publicly registered charities, greater public confidence and increased financial support for important social programs sponsored by our charities.

We believe there would be an increase in the number of charity volunteers. We believe that an engaged voting membership, irrespective of whether that be 20 individuals or 300 individuals, would be much more effective than any government regulation.

In August of this year the Finance Ministry released a discussion paper on the B.C. Society Act and requested public input on the proposed amendments. In section 65, under the section “Classes of membership,” the ministry is now recommending that all societies or charities have the ability to determine their own membership structure.

In our view, the ministry is attempting to develop a legal framework for two very different organizational entities: non-profit organizations and publicly registered charities.

For the most part, non-profit organizations are traditionally organized by members for the benefit of other members. Non-profits cannot operate exclusively for charitable purposes and cannot issue receipts for donations.

By contrast, publicly registered charities must operate exclusively for charitable purposes, as determined by the Canada Revenue Agency, which include the relief of poverty, advancement of education and religion and other purposes deemed to be charitable. Moreover, publicly registered charities can issue official donation receipts.

Why does this matter? Applying the same guidelines to non-profit organizations and publicly registered charities, we believe, creates regulatory gaps and a lack of needed oversight for our public charities.

While it makes sense for non-profits to determine their own membership structures, as their activities are driven by the interests of their membership, the interests of a
[ Page 1208 ]
publicly registered charity extend well beyond members to the larger community. The purpose of a publicly registered charity is to serve the best interest of the community, to improve the quality of life of those in need.

If all of our public charities continue to have the option to determine their own membership structure, a significant number of the approximately 12,800 registered charities will maintain their policy to restrict voting membership to members of a board of directors. We are concerned that problems, including the lack of accountability and transparency within the public charity sector, will not be adequately addressed.

In section 81 of the discussion paper the ministry states: “Funders who wish to participate in decision-making are always free to choose to support a society that affords them special rights.”

The majority of board members of publicly registered charities are volunteers and donors. We are not advocating for special rights. We are advocating for equal rights for all donors and volunteers. We do not believe the interests of the community are best served by affording a small group of volunteers and donors absolute control of a charity.

Our public charities need to send a message to their communities that clearly states that they are not just in the business of asking people for money but are also interested in people’s ideas, that they are interested in having people share their life experiences and professional skills. We know that in a for-profit corporation money attracts people; in a non-profit organization people attract financial support. It’s always about the people.

In the business community which I am a part of, we often use the term “positive leverage,” the ability to invest borrowed funds at higher yields than the cost of borrowing. If our public charities are to create positive leverage in their communities, they need to embrace the talents and experience and passion of those that live in the community.

S. Hamilton: Thanks, Mr. Block. You came to my office. We had the same discussion. I appreciate your insight on this particular topic. It’s very interesting. I’m intrigued by a lot of the conversation we had earlier.

My concern is — and I think we talked about this a little bit; maybe you can elaborate on it — there are so many non-profit societies, so many opportunities for public engagement and volunteerism that I would almost be afraid of volunteer fatigue. It’s proven that about 10 percent of the people do 90 percent of the volunteering in any particular community.

I entrust certain charities that I know, that I’m intimately familiar with…. B.C. guide dogs was the one that we talked about that my wife and I volunteer with. I entrust their board of directors to do the job that they are essentially mandated to do — and I cut them a cheque — and to appropriately spend the money that I give them.

Do you want to address that a little bit in terms of the amount of time and effort and what sort of wholesale changes would be required in a lot of the…? I’ll name names. Say the Rick Hansen Foundation. Let’s say the Terry Fox, David Suzuki. There are a lot of large, large foundations out there that rely on public and private donations that maybe qualify as those closed shops that you are talking about. Maybe you can elaborate a little bit.

J. Block: The issue we’re trying to address here is the issue of accountability, transparency and community engagement. What we are saying is that many of these charitable organizations have the freedom to raise untold dollars in a community, but the level of real accountability is limited. We don’t believe that the obligation to release a financial statement six months after a year-end is real accountability, because none of the decisions made by that board have been scrutinized by those that are writing the cheques.

The issue is a reciprocal relationship. I’ve had a discussion with a number of different charities that say: “Look, if we give you these kinds of rights, you’re going to create all sorts of these types of problems. We’re going to have to spend more dollars on membership communication, public communications, special interest group risks and all these other problems.”

My answer to them is: “It’s interesting. You’re asking a community to trust you that there are not conflicts of interest on your board, that you’re not spending excessively on wages, salaries and so on. You’re asking the community to trust you that you will employ the dollars exactly the way you represented, but it seems you don’t trust your own donors. You’re literally asking us: ‘You write a cheque, and we know better, and please don’t ask any questions.’”

The issue that we’re trying to address in this discussion is all about accountability, transparency and community engagement.

D. Ashton (Chair): Mr. Block, who brought it on? I’m always curious about…. What brought this on?

J. Block: My family has been part of this province since the ’30s, and the group of us that are part of this have been born and raised here. We all have been very involved in various public charities over many, many years because we were all raised in a family culture that was…. If a community supports your business or your profession, you have an obligation to give back. I’m a child of the ’50s. Over the years we’ve had wonderful and rewarding experiences supporting many different organizations, and we still do today.

But we’ve noticed that there has been a culture change within a lot of these organizations that, other than your cheque, your input isn’t welcome. We’re saying community engagement isn’t all about just asking people for money. That’s not engaging at all. That’s just asking people for money. Engagement is inviting people to be part of the team, asking for their input, asking for their ideas. There’s a world of talent out in the community that can contribute to the success of the work of those public charities.

Of all the charities we have researched, 40 percent of them have these closed shops. I don’t think that serves the public interest, and I believe that should be addressed in some way in our Society Act.

D. Ashton (Chair): Very good point. Sir, thank you very much. Thank you for the presentation.

Mr. Tavender, you have ten minutes for a presentation. I’ll give you a two-minute warning, and then we have five minutes reserved for questions. Okay?

R. Tavender: I’d just like to begin by…. If you could please not call me “Mr.” My people don’t believe in masters and slaves. I mean, that’s where that lingo….

Good evening, budget committee. It’s been about a year since I last spoke with you. This year I really tried my best to register in time. On the day registration for these meetings opened, I called at about noon, and I was told that the Vancouver meeting was booked up and that there was only this slot available out in Surrey. So I’ve travelled to meet with you at my own expense.

I reiterate my comment from last year that if these consultations are to be meaningful, it makes sense to schedule more time in Vancouver. Also, I am not being paid to be here by anyone. I am here of my own mere and free will.

I will begin by acknowledging our presence in aboriginal territory by using one of the languages indigenous to this region, Chinook.

Nesika papa klaksta mitlite kopa saghalie,
Kloshe kopa nesika tumtum mika nem.
Kloshe mika tyee kopa konaway tillikum.
Kloshe mika tumtum kopa illahee kahkwa kopa saghalie;
Potlatch konaway sun nesika muckamuck,
Pe kopet-kumtux konaway nesika mesachie.
Kahkwa nesika mamook kopa klaksta spose mamook mesachie kopa nesika;
Mahah siah kopa nesika knoaway mesachie.
Kloshe kahkwa

[Our Father who dwells on high,
Good for our hearts Your Name.
Good You Chief of all people;
Good Your heart to such country as Yours up above;
Give us all days our food.
And stop remembering all our sins.
As our deeds by which we may have made evil against you;
Throw far from us all evil.]

Today I am here to continue my comments from last year. The situation in Vancouver city, where I hang around much of the time, is degenerating. There is now a large tent city in Vancouver. At its peak it had over 200 tents occupying a public park. The social assistance rate is too low all around. The disabled, the seniors and the unemployed are not given sufficient security. So as I said last year, my comments are continued. I think the situation is unconstitutional, and I think it infringes the right to security of the person.

“The University of British Columbia is to be considered an integral part of the public educational system of the province. As such, it completes the work begun in the public and high schools, holding to the high school, with regard to studies, a position comparable to that which the high school sustains to the public school.

“As those who have passed through the public schools may freely avail themselves of the high school, so those who have profited by instruction offered in the high schools may advance to the opportunities afforded by the university. To encourage all who may be able to proceed to higher education, the passage from one grade to another is made as easy and natural as possible.

“The province, through the university, undertakes to furnish instruction in the various branches requisite for a liberal education and in the technical branches that have a bearing upon the life and industries of the province.”

The chiropractors inspired me to do this next bit, but I think it bears talking about.

One of the technical branches that has a bearing on the life of the province, and an industry that really isn’t funded in any public way, is the marijuana industry. The regulation of that…. Well, in Vancouver there are over 40 shops selling pot, hash, hash oil and all sorts of edible marijuana products. There’s no provincial regulation of this. Various court cases say that sick and disabled Canadians have a constitutional right of access to medical marijuana, but the case law has not yet clarified who should pay for it.

The cost of marijuana is inflated primarily by the lack of a legal provincial market, in my view. I have never understood why the province has ceded so much of its historical jurisdiction over food and drugs to the federal government. Federal policy is harming British Columbians, who now cannot afford to purchase medical marijuana.

Further, there is not any budget, as I understand, for educating doctors on this, although that profession is somewhat self-regulating so that’s up to them, I suppose.
[ Page 1210 ]
But a school of marijuana — I know that’s not quite grammatical — some sort of public institution to take care of this industry seems prudent at this point given that, as I say, there are 40 stores in Vancouver selling this stuff with really no regulation or oversight that one would typically expect for a health product.

To continue my written comments, last year I had not quite tracked down a copy of the British Columbia University Act of 8 Edward VII. I referred to section 102 thereof without quoting it verbatim. This year I have the copy to read to you. “Instruction in arts in the University (except post-graduate instruction) shall be free to all regular students matriculated in the University, and who enter their names with the Registrar of the University, also to students enrolled in an affiliated Normal School; but this provision shall not include exemption from laboratory fees.”

I have never been able to find any statute repealing this provision. Still more good evidence that we are entitled to free education in the university: the British Columbia University Act, 1890. Portions of this act continue in force and define the first convocation of the University of British Columbia.

The preamble to the act, however, is the most interesting portion, to my eye, as it states that the university is to be “one university for the whole of British Columbia for the purpose of raising the standard of higher education in the province and of enabling all denominations and classes to obtain academical degrees.” That’s the preamble to the statute so that can sort of be read before every clause, I think.

The phrase “all denominations and classes to obtain academical degrees” deserves the most liberal and effective construction possible. The ambit of “class” is clearly intended to mean that the university is not only for those capable of paying. If anyone has a better construction, I would like to hear it, but I think that must have been the legislative intent, given the totality of evidence on this topic.

To close, I reiterate my judgment that balanced-budget legislation cannot be used to avoid these obligations. Indeed, as far as I have been able to find, the provision of free arts education, at a minimum, is a statutory obligation. If anyone knows the explicit statute of repeal, I would like to hear of it, but I have done my best to find it and I cannot.

Further, the poor cannot collect social assistance and go to university at the same time, if they are able to meet the ridiculously high admission requirements, which are often only met by people from the higher socioeconomic strata of society. If they enter the university, they are expected to undertake loans in order to finance their education. Instead of giving our poor and disabled a leg up in British Columbia, we shackle them with even further debt if they want to improve themselves. This situation is untenable and unconstitutional.

We have ten minutes allotted to your presentation — I’ll give you a two-minute warning if required — and then up to five minutes for questions or comments.

I have a handout that’s going around, and I’ll be following it on my computer as well. I’m here today on behalf of the Capilano Students Union. I’m also a communications student at Capilano University.

The Capilano Students Union represents over 7,500 domestic and international students. We’re situated on the North Shore, and therefore, we’re a major asset to that area. This is what we consider our specialization to be — serving the North Shore residents. Out of our 7,500-plus students, 3,300-plus — or 43 percent of them — reside on the North Shore.

Of course, at the foundation of Capilano University is our strong relationship with the Coast Salish consortium. Given our location and our name, we’re very proud of this relationship, and we know this is a relationship that this government values as well.

We’re all aware of the adversity that Capilano University has faced over the past year and a half, that being funding challenges. I’m here today to talk to you a little bit about one way that this committee can help out Capilano University. That is in the area of student housing.

Obviously, there are some very apparent benefits of student housing. That would be that it provides a safe and affordable student living situation, it enhances student life, attracts more domestic students — those students who are really looking for the full campus and university experience. It increases international student enrolment, which I know is something that we’re all looking to do. And it’s a starting point for other on-campus businesses, such as pubs, for example. A campus pub isn’t sustainable without residents to fill it.

Capilano University currently has no student housing. We’re a commuter campus. That means that there’s a major reliance placed on public transit for our students. Additionally, the North Shore can be quite a costly place to rent, especially for students. Therefore, a significant amount of Capilano students face housing challenges.

I consider myself to be a fairly on-the-ball student, if
[ Page 1211 ]
you will. I thought that I would start with a bit of a powerful anecdote, given that we’re talking about student housing. On-the-ball students tend to have their stuff together. They don’t really go through challenges like this.

However, this past March I actually found myself homeless. I thought that I’d found a very close-to-my-campus, up-to-par, up-to-standard place to live, and it turned out to be quite an unsafe living situation. I’m not from here, like many students, so I couldn’t really just say: “Hey, I’m just going to go live with my family.” I couldn’t do that, so I had to make decision between whether I was going to live in an unsafe living situation or couch-surf on friends’ couches.

Luckily, I had that option. I wasn’t living out of my car. But I had to put my stuff in a storage unit and then look on Craigslist for a potential roomie to live with. Most other students at this time already have housing situations set up, so they’re not in the same situation as me. Luckily, I found a very awesome roommate, and it has worked out. But it’s quite an uncomfortable situation to look to a stranger to live with. It’s uncomfortable, and it can be unsafe.

After a month of couch-surfing, my roommate and I, probably after looking at 25 really dingy and overpriced housing options, finally found an apartment to live in. It’s close to my school. It’s close to transit. It’s great. We thought we were all set up, and now we’ve found out that our housing unit is slated to be demolished for condos to take over. So we’re going to be back to the housing search. Where we’re living the condos won’t be returned to affordable housing prices.

Unfortunately, this is a situation that many students find themselves in, especially since Capilano University doesn’t have student housing.

In spring of this year Capilano University, the CSU specifically, in partnership with some other community and on-campus groups decided to take part in a campaign called Five Days for the Homeless, in which we generated the conversation on campus about housing insecurity, youth homelessness, and so on.

We learned that 70 percent of our students are actually housing-insecure. That means that 30 percent or more of their income is going toward paying for housing costs. This is fairly common.

As I mentioned before, 43 percent of our students live on the North Shore, but that means that 57 percent of them don’t. These students are coming in from places like South Burnaby, Surrey, Langley, even Delta. This means they’re spending a significant amount of time on transit. Now, they’re doing this because there aren’t affordable housing options on the North Shore and, once again, there’s no student housing at Capilano University.

When we asked ourselves the question of why youth aren’t working more, another one of the factors that plays into that is the fact that when they’re coming from places such as Surrey — which we’re in right now — and they’re transiting to the North Shore so that they can take part in classes for a large portion of the day and then another large portion of their day is spent studying and another large portion is spent commuting, there’s not a whole lot of time left to work.

We also learned that one of the biggest challenges for international students when they were coming to Canada, or to B.C. more specifically, to study at Capilano University was trying to find student housing. This was a huge worry for their parents as well.

I’m sure some of you have children. Imagine sending your child to a different country and not knowing where they’re going to live because the university they’re going to study at doesn’t have student housing and the only way that they’re going to find student housing is searching on Craigslist. We’ve all heard horror stories about Craigslist. That’s not really the best way to give parents or students peace of mind when they’re coming to a different country to study.

That wasn’t even the most concerning piece that we learned from this campaign. The most concerning fact that we learned was that a significant amount of our students are already in the position in their lives that they’re using housing shelters. These are young adults. These are students, and they’re already at a position in their lives where they need to use housing shelters. That, to me, is unacceptable in British Columbia.

Other students had been living in their cars. Other students had been living in tents. Other students had been couch-surfing, which, as I shared with you, is something that I’ve been subjected to myself.

In a system where post-secondary education is almost required to obtain a career with a living wage, this is unacceptable. These are tomorrow’s leaders, and right now they need the help of the leaders of today, which is all of you.

My final slide outlines how you, specifically, can help our students. Our ask No. 1 comes out of a letter that we received recently outlining that Capilano University must seek permission in order to build any student housing on campus. Ask No. 1 would be: please grant us that permission to build student housing.

Ask No. 2 is a two-parter. Either (a) or (b) will suffice. We know that in our letter of expectations it’s required and outlined that we must achieve a balanced budget or a surplus at the end of each year. Ask No. 1 would be: please allow for an exception so that we could build student housing.

If that doesn’t work, then ask No. 2 has to do with the University Act. I know I’m running out of time here, so I won’t read it all. In the University Act it says that we could borrow money for the purposes of acquiring land or “erecting, repairing, adding to,” and so on, the buildings and structure of the university. Ask 2(b) would be: please allow us to access our reserves for the purpose of
[ Page 1212 ]
building affordable student housing.

M. Morris: Thanks, Brittany, for your presentation. Whereabouts are you from? You said you’re not from here.

M. Morris: Part of choosing a post-secondary institution to study in is making sure that you’ve got a place to live. There are a whole bunch of factors that go with that. My committee colleagues are going to know where I’m coming from because I’ve brought it up with other students, faculty and associations before. We have quite a few post-secondary institutions throughout the province that are underutilized and that offer housing and all kinds of other opportunities for students.

I would wonder why students would pick a particular location and have to live in a car when they can get a university education, a post-secondary education, at UNBC, for an example, or Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, for an example, or other post-secondary institutions.

M. Morris: Yeah. I’m just curious as to why somebody would do that and then, of course, come back to government and say: “You’re not providing us enough, and we need more here.”

B. Barnes: I think of myself as a good example. I found myself in a situation where I thought that, like I said, I was on the ball. I work as a student. I’m a great student. I’ll say so myself. And I suddenly found myself in a situation where I didn’t have housing. I had it all lined up right until the day that I was supposed to move in. I thought everything was good to go, and then on the day I moved in — I won’t get into the details — it turned out to not be a safe situation for me to be in. I had to make that call about whether this is a situation that I want to subject myself to. Say I had just moved here. If I didn’t have friends on that day that I could go and stay with, I would have had my car, and that was it.

An even greater situation would be if parents are asking their children to contribute to housing costs, and the students can’t because they’re trying to study and they can’t work, and they’re then asked to leave home. That’s one of the situations where they might find themselves in.

I know that there are quite a few students whose parents won’t contribute to their education so they have to fund that themselves. Then imagine trying to fund your education on your own and also relocate yourself, if you grew up in Metro Vancouver, to Prince George to go to UNBC. How would you ever even accumulate the funds to do that?

G. Holman: Thanks for the presentation, Brittany. I’m beginning to suspect that Mike is a recruiter for the University of Northern British Columbia.

I don’t think this is a question you necessarily can answer, but maybe you can get some additional information on it. There is housing provided at other universities, other colleges, in British Columbia. They seem to be able to do that. I’m assuming that there would be similar rules in terms of having to balance budgets and the use of reserves.

I guess I’m just curious why Capilano seems to be the exception in terms of providing on-campus housing. If you can’t answer that, maybe you can provide us some information on why Capilano finds itself in that situation.

B. Barnes: For sure. I mean, I won’t have all of the information, but I do know that we have received a letter saying we have to seek permission in order to build any housing, so that’s a little bit ambiguous. But also in terms of accessing our reserves, I know we have asked to, and we’ve been denied.

S. Hamilton: Thanks, Brittany, for your presentation. It was great. By the way, I’ll start by saying don’t be too surprised that I knew you were from Winnipeg. I often will google a few people — presenters, the witnesses — and especially the bright and articulate ones like you.

S. Hamilton: I’m curious though. Does Capilano University…? I don’t know exactly how this looks, but do they have the property assets to accommodate on-campus housing, if you were to move forward with a project like that?

B. Barnes: Yes. Capilano University has been approached by several developers, and they’ve been in discussion with the municipalities in the area. It all comes down to the funding, and it all comes down to: even if we were to sign a contract with a developer, that constitutes debt. And when we don’t have the permission to go into debt, that’s where it kind of stops for us.

S. Hamilton: Okay, then just a follow-up to that. What happens on the wild chance there’s a default? Who’s holding the bag then? Is it the provincial government? I’m not sure exactly how that works. It’s been suggested to me that that would be the case.

S. Hamilton: Well, I’d certainly like to continue the discussions going forward.

D. Ashton (Chair): Brittany, if you have any additional information you want to submit to us, make sure we get it by the 17th of the month. Some of the questions…. If there is additional information you would like to provide, we can accept it till the 17th.

B. Barnes: Okay, that’s great. Thank you so much for that information. Thanks for having me.

D. Ashton (Chair): We have ten for the presentation. I’ll give you a two-minute warning. Then up to five minutes. You can see we do usually have quite a few questions.

B. Swan: Great. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity for Merck Canada to contribute to the 2015 prebudget consultation process.

My name is Bonnie Swan, and I’m the manager of public health policy and government relations for Merck vaccines. I do have a PowerPoint presentation in the folder that was just handed out, so if you’d like to follow along, that would be great.

First, an overview of what I’m going to cover. I’m going to talk a little bit about Merck Canada and Merck investment in British Columbia. Then I’m going to talk about an HPV vaccine that I’m here to discuss and potential savings from implementing an HPV program. Finally, a recommendation.

First, a few important facts about Merck. Merck is a global health care leader with a diversified portfolio of prescription medicines, vaccines, consumer care and animal health products. In Canada Merck markets more than 530 pharmaceutical, consumer care and animal health products. Merck is a leader in a broad range of areas such as cardiology, infectious diseases, respiratory vaccines and women’s health and is focused on expanding offerings in other areas, including virology, oncology and diabetes.

Based in Montreal, Quebec, our company employs approximately 1,150 individuals across Canada. Merck is one of the top R-and-D investors in Canada, with investments totalling $39.7 million in 2012 alone, and more than $1 billion since 2000, with investments of $944 million in B.C. from 2006 to 2012.

One key aspect distinguishing Merck from other international manufacturers is a strong and longstanding commitment to investment in advancing immunization. As it relates to both novel vaccines and innovative technologies, a core component of our business, researching and manufacturing vaccines is a lengthy, complex and costly undertaking. Notwithstanding, Merck has been very successful at introducing transformative products to the international markets, benefiting both individuals and communities across the globe. Our unique contributions include the prevention of now-rare diseases, such as measles and mumps, to diseases never thought preventable, like shingles and cervical cancer.

If you go to the slide, it says: “HPV and related cancers and diseases.” I’ll start with that. The current Gardasil HPV program was introduced in Canada in 2007 and in B.C. in 2008. At the time, the benefits of HPV vaccine for girls were well known. Approximately 70 percent of all cervical cancers were known to be caused by HPV strains 16 and 18. Introducing an HPV vaccination program for girls made sense as an investment to improve population health and save lives.

As you can see from this slide, there are now…. Our knowledge has changed substantially since that program was introduced, and you will see that approximately 80 percent of all people are infected by one type or greater than one type of HPV at some point in their lifetime. HPV is responsible for virtually 100 percent of cervical cancers, 88 percent of anal cancers, 70 percent of vaginal cancers, 43 percent of vulvar cancers, 50 percent of penile cancers and between 26 percent and 63 percent of oral and pharyngeal cancers, which are head and neck cancers.

Our knowledge has changed since the introduction of the vaccine. In 2007 the Gardasil HPV vaccine was not indicated or approved for use in males, but over the past few years strong evidence has emerged that boys benefit as much as girls from HPV vaccination. As of 2012, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization has recommended boys be vaccinated from nine to 26 years of age.

HPV is now known to cause almost all cases of anal-genital warts in both males and females. The virus is linked to throat, oral cavity, penile and anal cancers. Overall, the number of HPV-linked cancers in men is now believed to be similar to that of cervical cancers in women. Researchers now also show the incidence of HPV is actually greater in males than in females.

If you look at the next slide, which shows a bit of a triangle, it shows a distribution between males and females. You’ll see it’s fairly equal between genital warts and then the cervical cancer for females. Anal cancers
[ Page 1214 ]
are fairly equally divided between females and males, but where you see some discrepancy is with the head and neck cancers, showing much more distribution in the male population.

HPV in youth. HPV is common and easy to transmit. When sexual activity starts, HPV risk increases. It’s estimated that 65 percent of sexually active males in British Columbia have HPV. HPV can lead to serious conditions like cancer, genital warts and genital lesions. According to the cost of treatment for B.C., it was estimated at $3.4 million per year. Those were fairly old statistics that I could locate, in January 2006.

A gender-neutral HPV vaccination program and the economic benefits of it. Vaccines are inexpensive compared to long-term care required for disease treatment and are the most cost-effective health intervention available.

Alberta recently added boys to their HPV vaccination program. Dr. Ada Bennett, the Alberta deputy medical officer of health, stated publicly that extending the program to boys will cost the province $4 million a year but ultimately save the health care system $13.4 million.

Alberta has also stated that expanding the HPV program to males can save lives, reduce disease and reduce future health care costs in Alberta. This is expected to prevent 440 cases of head and neck cancer in Alberta men. The cost saving from this preventative effort could represent cost savings to the health care system of over $13.4 million.

So what’s the rationale for a universal gender neutral HPV vaccination program? Well, firstly, it provides direct disease protection in males and additional protection in females, results in greater and more rapid reduction of disease than a female-only vaccination program, is cost-effective under many scenarios, provides for greater health equity. Males and females should be able to reduce their risk of HPV-related cancer and disease through vaccination. So to eliminate HPV-related cancer and disease in the population, a universal gender neutral vaccination program is optimal.

The next slide compares vaccination to drug spending in the province. The B.C. Centre for Disease Control in 2008-2009, which were the last statistics that I could find a line item for, spent $43 million on vaccines. That same year the Ministry of Health’s PharmaCare budget was over $1 billion. In 2008-09 B.C. spent about 23 times more money on drugs than preventative vaccines.

Recommendation. Merck is committed to immunization, as we fundamentally believe that vaccines represent one of the greatest opportunities to improve population health, reduce the burden of disease and save money in health care. While the British Columbia government has been active in expanding access to publicly funded immunization, there remains an opportunity to provide additional benefit to the public. In particular, Merck recommends that the British Columbia government follow the lead of provinces like Alberta and Prince Edward Island in expanding the HPV school-based program to extend equal protection to British Columbia boys.

Merck believes that the clinical and financial evidence clearly substantiates the health and economic benefit of implementing this recommendation. Such action would improve the province’s health and has the potential to save the health system money. In a time of fiscal restraint such targeted investments make good sense.

Merck looks forward to working with the British Columbia government to expand the public access to essential vaccines such as Gardasil for HPV. We are confident that enhancing the public’s protection against HPV is strongly supported by health, social and financial policy rationale.

This sounds like something that should have…. Maybe you already have put it before the Drug Benefit Council for the province. If so, I’d like to hear what their response was — their recommendations.

B. Swan: It has gone through…. We worked closely with the BCCDC on this issue. It has been brought forward, my understanding, for, I guess, evaluation. I think some of the issues around the cost benefit of the program have been raised. They raised them with Merck as well. So Merck has now reduced the price of the vaccine to meet the cost expectations that were raised with the BCCDC, and that just happened this July. So the vaccine has come down substantially in the most recent contract to accommodate this cost-effectiveness request.

M. Morris: So is that being revisited, then, by the ministry, by the drug formulary?

B. Swan: I don’t know if it’s been revisited since the contract, but it was a request from them.

I’m just curious to find out if you have made the same submission to the Select Standing Committee on Health.

J. Shin: We’re accepting written submissions until the end of December, I believe. The deadline has been just pushed back. So if you would like to please put it forward, then we’ll definitely appreciate hearing the same thing. Thanks.

Well, Bonnie, thank you very much. Have a good day. And if you do think of anything else you’d like to present until October 17, we can take additional submissions.

Up next we have Gastrointestinal Society of British Columbia. Gail, welcome. How are you today?

We have allotted ten minutes for the presentation — I’ll give you a two-minute warning at eight minutes — and five minutes for questions or comments. Please go ahead.

I’m here to talk today about a cost-saving policy, or at least one that’s touted as being a cost-saving policy, that actually costs money. Therapeutic substitution is forcing a patient to switch brand medications within a class for non-medical reasons.

I liken this to food. If you just looked at drugs as if they were foods and one class was, say, fruit…. You know your own experience with fruit. It could be very different from the person sitting next to you. If you were all to go to a buffet and select fruit, only one piece of fruit, and put it in front of you and then pass it to the right, the person beside you might not be able to handle that particular fruit.

I’m making it very straightforward and simple because these medications that we’re talking about are brand names. They’ve proven to the regulators in Canada that they are different from each other, and therefore they’ve proven their difference. So it’s very much like a fruit. An apple is not a pomegranate.

This is not generic substitution, so we’re not looking at apples and apples and different varieties of apples. We’re actually looking at different types of fruit in an analogy situation.

We urge the Finance Committee to advise PharmaCare against therapeutic substitution, which is an ill-conceived drug reimbursement coverage policy that has proven, using B.C.’s own Linked data, to actually increase costs within the PharmaCare budget and increase physician visits and hospital ER visits. It pushes others out of the health care system by this unavoidable use. It causes many negative effects on patients, and we suggest you pursue instead some other kind of collaborative solutions with patient groups and pharmaceutical companies.

The next slide is a picture of what often happens in decision-making. We all — even me in my role as the CEO of the Gastrointestinal Society — make decisions, and we think that they’re good for our constituents. The reality is that the person who receives it might not look at it the same way. So that’s why we’ve got this little disparity picture here showing that we all think we’re great about the decisions we make, but do they really meet the needs of the individual?

I’m here because PharmaCare issued a bulletin on July 29. I’ve quoted it there so you can pull that out yourselves. It’s regarding the DPP-4 medications for type 2 diabetes. Now, this isn’t in my therapeutic area of gastrointestinal at all, so you might wonder why I’m here. It’s because in 2003 a very similar thing happened in the GI area.

The Gastrointestinal Society. I’ve listed our mission there. We’re here to help patients who have GI illness, but we also care about health policy, especially when we see something that’s gone wrong, and we see it happening again.

I’ve listed some of the GI and liver conditions that we cover just for you to see the context of where I’m coming from and that I don’t have an interest in the diabetes drugs per se. Of all of those diseases that are listed there, the disease that was attacked under this policy in 2003 was reflux disease, also known as gastroesophageal reflux disease and known as GERD.

There was a case study. The next slide shows you that in 2003 the B.C. Ministry of Health introduced a new therapeutic substitution policy. It was the first of its kind in Canada, and it was related to proton pump inhibitors, which is a medication that suppresses acid by turning off proton pumps within the stomach. They stated at the time that it would protect $42 million over three years in the PharmaCare budget.

This happened as this new policy that they were introducing…. It happened over a six-month period, and within that six-month period we had a 25 percent failure rate for those individuals switched from one brand to another. There were no generics in that class, and there are no generics in this new class that they’re looking at substituting.

We heard from patients, a huge number of patients. Within two weeks we heard from 300 patients, and that’s a lot of people calling an office to say they have a problem.

They had a return of their illness, their reflux disease. They had really severe heartburn and side effects: diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, chest pain, fatigue, vomiting blood and other symptoms. Chest pain can really disguise itself as heart attack, so these patients were going into the hospital and manifesting with what seemed like heart attacks. There was a lot of extra testing going on in the hospital in those ER visits.

So there was emotional impact for these patients, financial impact and a public purse impact, which I’ll get to.

There were three of us who were researchers on this. We asked for the data, the B.C. Linked data, looking at all physician billings, hospital utilization and prescription drugs — all through the B.C. Linked databases. We
[ Page 1216 ]
got millions and millions of records. It was a huge study.

Once all that information was compiled, the study determined that there were additional net costs of $43.5 million over three years as a result of this policy. That included $9.11 million in increased PPI utilization. So instead of actually saving money in the PharmaCare budget, it cost more money. It also included $9.75 million for additional hospital services and $24.65 million in additional physician services.

What’s really important for you to know here is that before we could release the study, as part of our contract, the B.C. PharmaCare had to review that data. They reviewed the data, and they released us to publish that data. So it’s very important that B.C. PharmaCare knew this about the therapeutic substitution and what it would cost. Today they’re introducing the same policy for diabetes medications, which arguably could even be a more severe disease than reflux disease.

That’s a difference of $85.5 million over three years. What’s really interesting is that I went to the Ontario government with this, and I went to the Ministry of Finance. They walked me across the hall to Health and said: “You need to talk to them at Health here about the policy.” Therapeutic substitution never happened in Ontario. I think that Finance got it, in that you’re going to push costs from one area of health into the other area, and you’ve got to make sure that it all looks together and that it makes sense for everything.

One more slide, and then the rest of the things I will leave with you as reference.

My request to you today is to please advise PharmaCare to not do to type 2 diabetic patients what they did to GERD patients. It does not make economic sense to try to save a few dollars today by limiting access to medications that control a serious disease and then to pay thousands tomorrow for the consequences of a disease run rampant.

M. Morris: Interesting. I hear your comments. As a past member of the Drug Benefit Council myself and part of the therapeutic review for type 2 diabetes, and also looking at the different proton pump inhibitors that came across our desk…. We have some very brilliant people sitting on that committee and access to every research paper that’s been done on these different drugs.

I’m curious to find out: have you gone back to pharmaceutical services? Have you made a presentation to the Drug Benefit Council or any submission to them with respect to your thoughts on what you term is a therapeutic substitution?

As government members, we can’t direct somebody not to do something medically. It’s far outside of our scope of authority and whatnot. But the Drug Benefit Council does have a lot of impact on pharmaceutical services and the Ministry of Health. I’m curious to find out where you went in that direction.

G. Attara: I’ve approached PharmaCare for answers, to ask in fact what evidence they used for making the decision to therapeutically substitute the DPP-4s. Unfortunately, Eric Lun, who I am meeting with, has not been available.

We have had it out in the media a little bit. Eric Lun wrote a letter to the Sun, and I wrote a letter back, and we’ve been trying to meet to discuss it. Unfortunately, those meetings keep getting delayed. He’s now not available until November, even though he did commit to meeting us in September. So we’re a bit challenged by the fact that PharmaCare is not meeting with us.

You’ve got to understand, too, that therapeutic substitution has already happened to GERD patients, so I don’t have a vested interest either. While the health policy matters, because it’s going to happen in other parts of health care, right now perhaps the Diabetes Association is best suited to really fight for the DPP-4s.

I just think it’s bad policy to have the evidence in your own hands that was done from B.C.’s own data — it’s the biggest, most robust study of its kind — and to disregard that. Why the drug benefit committee is disregarding it, I don’t know. I don’t have the answer.

Gail, thank you very much for coming today. If you have any further submissions, please if we could have them before the 17th.

G. Attara: I’ve left the study for you to look at. There are a few other points about GERD and why that particular…. I didn’t think they were relevant to this exact discussion, but they will help you in reference material.

D. Ashton (Chair): But if there are any other ones that you don’t have with you or you come across something, you have until the 17th to submit it.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

3) Music B.C.	Bob D'Eith
Canadian Media Production Association, BC Producers’ Branch	Liz Shorten
Association of Book Publishers of British Columbia	Margaret Reynolds

19) B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union	Stephanie Smith
	Megan Scott
	Simon Kelly

Chair:	* Dan Ashton (Penticton BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	Carole James (Victoria–Beacon Hill NDP)
Members:	* Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	* Simon Gibson (Abbotsford-Mission BC Liberal)
	* Wm. Scott Hamilton (Delta North BC Liberal)
	* George Heyman (Vancouver-Fairview NDP)
	* Gary Holman (Saanich North and the Islands NDP)
	* Mike Morris (Prince George–Mackenzie BC Liberal)
	* Jane Jae Kyung Shin (Burnaby-Lougheed NDP)
	* John Yap (Richmond-Steveston BC Liberal)
	* denotes member present
Other MLAs:	Bruce Ralston (Surrey-Whalley NDP NDP)
Clerk:	Susan Sourial
Committee Staff:	Sarah Griffiths (Committees Assistant)

Witnesses:	Shanti Ang (READ Surrey/White Rock Society)
	Gail Attara (President and CEO, Gastrointestinal Society of B.C.)
	Douglas Baer (President, Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia)
	Brittany Barnes (President, Capilano Students Union)
	John Block (President, Donors Rights Society)
	Caroline Bonesky (CEO, Family Services of Greater Vancouver)
	Mariane Bourcheix-Laporte (Pacific Association of Artist Run Centres)
	Ian Bruce (David Suzuki Foundation)
	Chardaye Bueckert (President, Simon Fraser Student Society)
	Pierre Cassidy ( Simon Fraser Student Society)
	Bob Davis (Kwantlen Faculty Association)
	Michael Davis (Family Services of Greater Vancouver)
	Gillian Dearle (Kwantlen Faculty Association)
	Bob D'Eith (Executive Director, Music B.C. Industry Association)
	James Donaldson (CEO, British Columbia Food Processors Association)
	Rick Gagner (British Columbia Food Processors Association)
	Dr. Mychael Gleeson
	Rob Gloor (Executive Director, Alliance for Arts and Culture)
	Sharon Gregson (Coalition of Child Care Advocates of British Columbia)
	Colin Hansen (Chair, Board of Directors, Fraser Basin Council)
	Paul Kariya (Executive Director, Clean Energy B.C.)
	Avi Kay (READ Surrey/White Rock Society)
	Simon Kelly (B.C. Government and Service Employees Union)
	Ken McCormack (President and CEO, Automotive Retailers Association)
	David Marshall (Executive Director, Fraser Basin Council)
	Rick Nickelchok (Executive Director, B.C. Chiropractic Association)
	Dr. Don Nixdorf (Pacific Spine Research and Education Foundation)
	Scott Olson (Chair, Light Rail Links Community Coalition)
	Susan Owen
	Dale Parker (Fraser Basin Council)
	Nadine Power (Abbotsford Community Services)
	Blair Qualey (President and CEO, New Car Dealers Association of B.C.)
	Margaret Reynolds (Executive Director, Association of Book Publishers of B.C.)
	Lornell Ridley (READ Surrey/White Rock Society)
	Dr. Jay Robinson (President, B.C. Chiropractic Association)
	Adriana Ruso (CFO, Fraser Basin Council)
	Rod Santiago (Executive Director, Abbotsford Community Services)
	Megan Scott (B.C. Government and Service Employees Union)
	Liz Shorten (Canadian Media Production Association, B.C. Producers Branch)
	Stephanie Smith (President, B.C. Government and Service Employees Union)
	Jo-Ann Stuart Chatterley (Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, B.C. Committee)
	Bonnie Swan (Merck Canada Inc.)
	Robin Tavender
	John Willow (Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, B.C. Committee)

4) Simon Fraser Student Society; Graduate Student Society at Simon Fraser University	Chardaye Bueckert
	Pierre Cassidy

6) Fraser Basin Council	Dale Parker
	Colin Hansen
	David Marshall
	Adriana Ruso

8) Family Services of Greater Vancouver	Caroline Bonesky
	Michael Davis

10) READ Surrey/White Rock Society	Lornell Ridley
	Shanti Ang
	Avi Kay

12) BC Food Processors Association	James Donaldson
	Rick Gagner

18) Canada’s Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D), BC Committee	Jo-Ann Stuart Chatterley
	John Willow

22) College of Chiropractors of BC; BC Chiropractic Association	Dr. Jay Robinson
	Rick Nickelchok

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES